Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/359,614

AMBIENT FILLING SYSTEM AND METHOD

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jul 26, 2023
Examiner
HOPKINS, ROBERT A
Art Unit
1776
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
PepsiCo, Inc.
OA Round
3 (Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
1336 granted / 1577 resolved
+19.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
1611
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
33.2%
-6.8% vs TC avg
§102
33.7%
-6.3% vs TC avg
§112
26.0%
-14.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1577 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 1-4 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese reference(JP2000-185796A) taken together with Japanese reference(JPH0632958U). Japanese reference in figure 3 teaches a beverage container filling device for filling a beverage container(container 24) with a fluid, the device comprising: a support housing(support housing 40) having an upper surface and a lower surface defining an inner fluid chamber(46) for supplying the fluid to be discharged into the container; a valve housing(valve housing 48) mounted to the lower surface for controlling the discharge of the fluid; a vent tube(vent tube 54) having a first end and a second end, the second end at least partially extending through the valve housing; a support tube(support tube 60) mounted between the upper surface and the lower surface of the support housing and substantially surrounding the vent tube; a spring(unnumbered but shown in figure 3) positioned about the first end of the vent tube; and a fluid sealing mechanism(fluid sealing mechanism 62) positioned adjacent to the upper surface and operating with the spring to control fluid flow of the fluid into the beverage container. Japanese reference(JP2000-185796A) is silent as to the spring having a spring strength optimized for laminar flow of the fluid from the inner chamber to the container. Japanese reference(JPH0632958U) in figures 1 and 2 teaches a container filling device for filling a liquid container(sink 13), the device including a support housing, a valve structure(valve body 46) for controlling discharge of liquid, and a spring (32) connected with the valve body 46, wherein the spring includes a spring strength optimized for laminar flow of the liquid from an inner chamber of the support housing to the sink( Examiner noting para 0015 of Japanese reference(JPH0632958U) stating “the strength of the spring 32 is designed so that the valve element 46 opens when the differential pressure between the upstream and downstream sides of the differential pressure actuated valve 33 reaches a pressure corresponding to the minimum operating flow rate of the device(heat exchanger) or higher.”. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention , requiring a laminar flow of fluid from the inner fluid chamber of Japanese reference(JP2000-185796A) to the container, to provide the spring of Japanese reference(JP2000-185796A) with a corresponding spring strength that provides for controlled laminar flow of fluid from the inner fluid chamber(46), to the valve housing(48), and to a downstream container(24). Examiner notes Japanese reference(JPH0632958U) disclose a spring-based valve for controlling fluid flow. Because the device is designed to operate with controlled filling flow, the spring necessarily has a strength selected to permit proper laminar fluid flow. In the absence of further quantification(noting the current specification does not provide a working example that quantifies laminar flow as a function of spring strength) that serves to better distinguish from the prior art, the prior art spring strength being “optimized for laminar flow” is found to be inherently present as the spring is, by nature of the prior art invention, tailored to permit flow. With regards to claim 2 , Japanese reference(JP2000-185796A) taken together with Japanese reference(JPH0632958U)further teaches wherein the support tube encapsulates a central portion of the vent tube and does not surround a first end and a second end of the vent tube(stated in translation). With regards to claim 3 , Japanese reference(JP2000-185796A) taken together with Japanese reference(JPH0632958U)further teaches an umbellate ring (53 in figure 3) surrounding the vent tube and positioned adjacent the second end of the vent tube. With regards to claim 4 , Japanese reference(JP2000-185796A) taken together with Japanese reference(JPH0632958U) further teaches wherein the vent tube is configured to move along a predetermined stroke between a filling position and a non-use position(stated in translation of Japanese reference(JP2000-185796A)). With regards to claim 6 , Japanese reference(JP2000-185796A) taken together with Japanese reference(JPH0632958U)further teaches wherein when the vent tube is at the filling position, the umbellate ring is centered in an X direction and in a Y direction with respect to the beverage container. With regards to claim 7 , Japanese reference(JP2000-185796A) taken together with Japanese reference(JPH0632958U)further teaches wherein a pressure of the inner fluid chamber is approximately 5 bar during operation of the filling device(examiner notes the inner fluid chamber is provided in JP reference, and a filing operation provides for a functional use of the claimed inner fluid chamber). With regards to claim 8 , Japanese reference(JP2000-185796A) taken together with Japanese reference(JPH0632958U)further teaches wherein a pressure of the inner fluid chamber is approximately 0.5 bar less than an interior pressure of a fluid supply tank that supplies the fluid to the filling device (examiner notes the inner fluid chamber is provided in JP reference, and a fluid supply tank is not a part of the claimed beverage filling device). With regards to claim 9 , Japanese reference(JP2000-185796A) taken together with Japanese reference(JPH0632958U)further teaches wherein the vent tube has a height of less than approximately 4.5 mm(examiner notes a vent tube needs to have a height that fits a standard bottle for filling). With regards to claim 10 , Japanese reference(JP2000-185796A) taken together with Japanese reference(JPH0632958U) further teaches wherein the filling device is configured to operate when a temperature is approximately 15 degrees Celsius(examiner notes that the structure of the claimed filling device is anticipated, and an operation temperature provides for a functional use of the claimed filling device). With regards to claim 11 , Japanese reference(JP2000-185796A) taken together with Japanese reference(JPH0632958U) further teaches an actuation lever (an actuating lever 64) mounted within the support housing, wherein the actuation lever is configured to manipulate the fluid sealing mechanism between an open position and a closed position. With regards to claim 12 , Japanese reference(JP2000-185796A) taken together with Japanese reference(JPH0632958U) further teaches a beverage container filling system, comprising: a carbonized tank; the beverage container filling device of claim 1, a carousel (figure 1) comprising at least one product supply pipe extending from the carbonized tank to the beverage container filling device; and a gas supply coupled to the carousel. With regards to claim 13 , Japanese reference(JP2000-185796A) taken together with Japanese reference(JPH0632958U)further teaches wherein the gas supply is configured to fill a container with an inert gas when the carousel is rotated to a first position. With regards to claim 14 , Japanese reference(JP2000-185796A) taken together with Japanese reference(JPH0632958U) further teaches wherein the beverage container filling device is configured to fill the container with the fluid when the carousel is rotated to a second position. Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese reference(JP2000-185796A) taken together with Japanese reference(JPH0632958U) in view of Sugden(2018424). Japanese reference(JP2000-185796A) taken together with Japanese reference(JPH0632958U) teaches all of the limitations of claim 21 but is silent as to further comprising a snift pipe and a snift valve configured to release gas from a headspace of the beverage container. Sugden in figure 3 teaches a beverage container filling device for filling a container(bottle 40), wherein the beverage container filling device includes a snift pipe(34) and a snift valve(35) configured to release gas from a headspace of the beverage container(column 4 lines 44-49). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the beverage container filling device of Japanese reference(JP2000-185796A) taken together with Japanese reference(JPH0632958U) with a snift pipe and a snift valve, in order to provide a mechanism for enabling surplus gas to escape from a headspace of the container of Japanese reference(JP2000-185796A). With regards to claim 22, Japanese reference(JP2000-185796A) taken together with Japanese reference(JPH0632958U) in view of Sugden is silent as to wherein the snift pipe has a diameter of greater than 1.5 mm. Examiner notes Sugden specifically teaches a snift pipe(34) having a predetermined diameter, and given that a snift pipe diameter is a result effective variable, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, through routine experimentation, to adjust the snift pipe diameter to a diameter greater than 1.5 mm to optimize an amount of gas released from a headspace of the container of Japanese reference(JP2000-185796A). Examiner notes para 0042 of the current specification only provides a statement that the snift pipe can have a diameter of greater than approximately 1.5 mm, however the specific pipe diameter is not given specific criticality for unexpected results that would prevent someone of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation from arriving at the claimed pipe diameter. Examiner refers applicant to MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B) for a discussion of a result effective variable. Claims 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese reference(JP2000-185796A) taken together with Japanese reference(JPH0632958U). Japanese reference(JP2000-185796A) in figure 3 teaches Japanese reference in figure 3 teaches a beverage container filling device for filling a beverage container(container 24) with a fluid, the device comprising: a support housing(support housing 40) having an upper surface and a lower surface defining an inner fluid chamber(46) for supplying the fluid to be discharged into the container; a valve housing(valve housing 48) mounted to the lower surface for controlling the discharge of the fluid; a vent tube(vent tube 54) having a first end and a second end, the second end at least partially extending through the valve housing; a support tube(support tube 60) mounted between the upper surface and the lower surface of the support housing and substantially surrounding the vent tube, and a spring(unnumbered but shown in figure 3) positioned about the first end of the vent tube. Japanese reference(JP2000-185796A) is silent as to the spring having a spring strength optimized for laminar flow of the fluid from the inner chamber to the container. Japanese reference(JPH0632958U) in figures 1 and 2 teaches a container filling device for filling a liquid container(sink 13), the device including a support housing, a valve structure(valve body 46) for controlling discharge of liquid, and a spring (32) connected with the valve body 46, wherein the spring includes a spring strength optimized for laminar flow of the liquid from an inner chamber of the support housing to the sink( Examiner noting para 0015 of Japanese reference(JPH0632958U) stating “the strength of the spring 32 is designed so that the valve element 46 opens when the differential pressure between the upstream and downstream sides of the differential pressure actuated valve 33 reaches a pressure corresponding to the minimum operating flow rate of the device(heat exchanger) or higher.”. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention , requiring a laminar flow of fluid from the inner fluid chamber of Japanese reference(JP2000-185796A) to the container, to provide the spring of Japanese reference(JP2000-185796A) with a corresponding spring strength that provides for controlled laminar flow of fluid from the inner fluid chamber(46), to the valve housing(48), and to a downstream container(24). Examiner notes Japanese reference(JPH0632958U) disclose a spring-based valve for controlling fluid flow. Because the device is designed to operate with controlled filling flow, the spring necessarily has a strength selected to permit proper laminar fluid flow. In the absence of further quantification(noting the current specification does not provide a working example that quantifies laminar flow as a function of spring strength) that serves to better distinguish from the prior art, the prior art spring strength being “optimized for laminar flow” is found to be inherently present as the spring is, by nature of the prior art invention, tailored to permit flow. With regards to claim 17 , Japanese reference further teaches a fluid sealing mechanism(fluid sealing mechanism 62) positioned adjacent to the upper surface and operating with the spring to control fluid flow of the fluid into the beverage container. With regards to claim 18 , Japanese reference further teaches wherein the support tube encapsulates a central portion of the vent tube and does not surround a first end and a second end of the vent tube(stated in translation). With regards to claim 19 , Japanese reference further teaches an umbellate ring (53 in figure 3) surrounding the vent tube and positioned adjacent the second end of the vent tube. With regards to claim 20 , Japanese reference further teaches a beverage container filling system, comprising: a carbonized tank; the beverage container filling device of claim 1, a carousel (figure 1) comprising at least one product supply pipe extending from the carbonized tank to the beverage container filling device; and a gas supply coupled to the carousel. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 1-14-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the office alleges that Naecker does not describe the function of the depicted spring or the spring strength of the depicted spring , much less having the spring strength optimized for laminar flow. Examiner respectfully submits that although the body of the reference Naecker does not specifically describe the function of the depicted spring, the spring is clearly illustrated in figure 3 positioned around a first end of a vent tube(54), therefore the spring clearly provides a biasing force on the vent tube when liquid within the inner fluid chamber is dispensed from the valve housing (48) to the container (24). Examiner furthermore respectfully submits that Japanese reference(JPH0632958U), as detailed in the current office action, provides motivation to someone of ordinary skill in the art to provide Naecker with a predetermined spring strength for the unnumbered spring of Naecker that would permit a laminar flow of fluid from the inner fluid chamber(46) to the container(24). Examiner respectfully submits Japanese reference(JPH0632958U) provides dispensing of a liquid through a valve body to a container, just as Japanese reference(JP2000-185796A) also provides for dispensing of a liquid through a valve body to a container, therefore both Japanese reference(JPH0632958U) and Japanese reference(JP2000-185796A) are within the same field of endevor, specifically a beverage container filling device for filling a beverage container(noting the water of Japanese reference(JPH0632958U) meets the criteria for a “beverage” filling a container). Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT A HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-1159. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-4pm. 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 5712707872. 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. /ROBERT A HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776 March 4, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 26, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 12, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 17, 2024
Response Filed
Apr 22, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 06, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 11, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 14, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 04, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12582946
ERGONOMIC DEVICE FOR MIXING FLUIDS WITH CONTROLLED METERING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582931
DRYING OF FILTER ELEMENTS IN A FILTER SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582934
SMART DUST SUPPRESSION SYSTEM THAT SPRAYS ATOMIZED WATER THROUGH A FAN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578106
AIR CLEANER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577927
ADJUSTMENT STRUCTURE AND CARBURETOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+8.1%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1577 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month