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
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) 1, 16-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClean et al. (WO 2012/162762).
McClean discloses
1. A carbonator 202 for carbonating a beverage in a beverage container 201, wherein the carbonator comprises: a beverage container compartment 225 that comprises a first portion 223 and a second portion 222 that is rotatably mounted to the first portion, wherein the first portion 223 comprises a first groove A and the second portion 222 comprises a second groove B, and wherein the carbonator 202 comprises a retaining finger 295 that is adapted to be arranged in the first and second grooves to rotatably mount the second portion to the first portion.
McClean does not explicitly disclose explicitly retainer of a ring shape, however, as can be seen by the figure below, one of skill would find it obvious to provide a retaining member of ring shape within the first and second grooves to engage with the disclosed finger 295 to further secure the rotatable engagement of the first and second portions.
PNG
media_image1.png
1174
924
media_image1.png
Greyscale
16. The carbonator of claim 1, wherein the retaining ring is made of metal.
It is generally considered to be within the skill of an artisan to choose an appropriate material from which to make parts needed for the device, as such one of skill would find it obvious to use metal or plastic as desired or needed since both materials would be known to be suitable for the intended purpose.
17. The carbonator of claim 1, wherein the second portion is made of metal.
It is generally considered to be within the skill of an artisan to choose an appropriate material from which to make parts needed for the device, as such one of skill would find it obvious to use metal or plastic as desired or needed since both materials would be known to be suitable for the intended purpose.
18. The carbonator of claim 1, wherein the first portion is made of plastic.
It is generally considered to be within the skill of an artisan to choose an appropriate material from which to make parts needed for the device, as such one of skill would find it obvious to use metal or plastic as desired or needed since both materials would be known to be suitable for the intended purpose.
19. The carbonator of claim 1, wherein the first portion is made of metal.
It is generally considered to be within the skill of an artisan to choose an appropriate material from which to make parts needed for the device, as such one of skill would find it obvious to use metal or plastic as desired or needed since both materials would be known to be suitable for the intended purpose.
20. The carbonator of claim 1, wherein the first portion, the retaining ring and the second portion form a tortuous path D from inside the beverage container compartment to an environment outside the container compartment.
21. The carbonator of claim 1, further comprising a compartment lid 226 portion adapted to cooperate with the second portion 222 to close the beverage container compartment 225 .
22. The carbonator of claim 1, wherein the first portion 223 is provided with an inner lining E that is made of metal.
It is generally considered to be within the skill of an artisan to choose an appropriate material from which to make parts needed for the device, as such one of skill would find it obvious to use metal or plastic as desired or needed since both materials would be known to be suitable for the intended purpose.
23. The carbonator of claim 22, wherein the inner lining E comprises a (inward) radial expansion that is adapted to bear against an end edge of a holder F.
24. The carbonator of claim 1, wherein the first groove is open radially outwards of the beverage container compartment and the second groove is open radially inwards of the beverage container compartment.
McClean discloses wherein the first groove is open downwards of the beverage container compartment and the second groove is open upwards of the beverage container compartment.
Since a simple rearrangement of parts is considered within the level of skill possessed by the artisan, changing the orientation of the groove from upward and downward to inwards and outwards would have been an obvious design choice to the artisan.
25. The carbonator of claim 1, further comprising: a carbonating head (See Fig 16) comprising a dissolver nozzle 263 for introducing carbonating medium into the beverage container; a support part 235 for movably supporting the carbonating head between a first position and a second position; a locking mechanism 295 operable between an unlocked state (fig. 15) and a locked state (fig. 16) in which the carbonating head is retained in the second position; and a base part 202 connected to the support part and comprising a beverage container stand for the beverage container, wherein the second portion 222 is comprised in the locking mechanism.
26. The carbonator of claim 25, wherein the beverage container compartment is formed by the carbonating head together with the beverage container stand, and wherein the second portion is locked to the beverage container stand by a rotative movement of the second portion in relation to the beverage container stand. See Figure 14
27. The carbonator of claim 25, wherein the carbonating head comprises a carbonating head housing made of metal.
It is generally considered to be within the skill of an artisan to choose an appropriate material from which to make parts needed for the device, as such one of skill would find it obvious to use metal or plastic as desired or needed since both materials would be known to be suitable for the intended purpose.
28. The carbonator of claim 27, wherein the carbonating head housing circumferentially surrounds an upper portion of the beverage container when the carbonating head is in the second position. See Fig. 14
29. The carbonator of claim 27, wherein the carbonating head housing comprises a lining made of metal that circumferentially surrounds an upper portion of the beverage container when the carbonating head is in the second position.
It is generally considered to be within the skill of an artisan to choose an appropriate material from which to make parts needed for the device, as such one of skill would find it obvious to use metal or plastic as desired or needed since both materials would be known to be suitable for the intended purpose.
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
Prosecution Insights