DETAILED ACTION
The Response filed 16 September 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-15 remain pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons in view of the previously applied prior art references – Johnson (US 3,272,218), Howell et al. (US 2007/0193633), and Huang (US 2010/0164154).
The applicant argues with respect to claim 1 on pg. 6 of the Response that the prior art neither pertains to the same field of application, nor addresses the challenges of achieving laminar flow in carbonated beverage dispensing, preserving foam creaminess, or maintaining consistent carbonation levels through the entire dispensing process. However, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the prior art is seen by the examiner as at least being in the field of the inventor’s endeavor of flow regulators. The specificity of the flow regulator being “for controlling the flow of carbonated beverages,” as claimed, is seen as an intended use that isn’t seen as defining over the prior art structure (MPEP 2111.02), and the specific fluid recited as being intended to be handled isn’t seen as having patentable weight (MPEP 2115).
The applicant argues with respect to claim 1 on pg. 6 of the Response that the prior art doesn’t teach or suggest a solution adaptable to a growler system capable of delivering such performance. However, a growler system isn’t claimed.
The applicant argues on pg. 7 of the Response that Johnson does not disclose or suggest: double conical geometries interacting with elastomeric materials; flow stabilization for beverages; and carbonation preservation under variable internal pressures. However, Johnson discloses in Figs. 1-4 a double conical part 55 interacting with an elastic material 65 in the form of a coil spring 65, and Huang teaches in Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 4-9 a cylindrical elastomeric material (Fig. 2) as a well known alternative to a coil spring (Fig. 1), such that it would have been obvious for a double conical part to interact with an elastomeric material, as claimed, in view of Johnson and Huang. Regarding the flow stabilization for beverages and carbonation preservation under variable internal pressures, such features concern conditional effects that are apparently produced by certain structures of the applicant’s device, rather than concerning positively claimed structures of the apparatus currently claimed by the applicant. The structures positively claimed are seen as being obvious in view of the prior art, as discussed in the prior art rejections, and regardless of whether or not the prior art produces the effects argued by the applicant.
The applicant argues on pg. 7 of the Response that Howell does not concern: beverage dispensing; and laminar flow or CO2 retention. However, as discussed above, the specific application of the flow regulator being for beverage dispensing isn’t seen as being positively claimed, and laminar flow or CO2 retention also isn’t seen as being positively claimed.
The applicant argues on pg. 7 of the Response that Huang neither discloses nor suggests combining elastomeric materials with double conical geometries to achieve constant flow regulation. However, as discussed above with regard to the argument concerning Johnson, Johnson discloses in Figs. 1-4 a double conical part 55 interacting with an elastic material 65 in the form of a coil spring 65, and Huang teaches in Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 4-9 a cylindrical elastomeric material (Fig. 2) as a well known alternative to a coil spring (Fig. 1), such that it would have been obvious for a double conical part to interact with an elastomeric material, as claimed, in view of Johnson and Huang. “Constant flow regulation” is a conditional effect of structure and isn’t positively recited.
The applicant argues on pg. 8 of the Response that the prior art doesn’t teach or suggest a valve for growlers capable of delivering carbonated beverages in a non-turbulent flow while maintaining consistent CO2 levels and creaminess and sensory quality through the entire dispensing process. However, such a specific product isn’t positively claimed. The claims recite a regulator with the intended use “for controlling the flow of carbonated beverages,” but doesn’t positively recite any structure of the growler. Maintaining consistent CO2 levels and creaminess and sensory quality through the entire dispensing process refers to the effect(s) of structures rather than positively defining a structure, and as discussed in the prior art rejections, the structures positively claimed are seen as being obvious in view of the prior art, regardless of whether or not the prior art produces the effects argued by the applicant.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 20, “the end of the downstream cone portion” should be changed to --an end of the downstream cone portion-- or --a downstream end of the cone portion-- because “the end” lacks an antecedent basis.
In claim 1, line 21, “upstream conical portion” should be changed to --upstream cone portion--.
In claim 1, line 22, “upstream conical portion” should be changed to --upstream cone portion--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected (wherein claims 2-15 inherit their rejections due to their dependencies) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the convex end" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As understood, the recitation refers to a convex end 22 on the upstream conical portion 25 of the double conical part 2.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 10-15 (as understood: all) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 3,272,218) in view of Howell et al. (US 2007/0193633), and Huang (US 2010/0164154).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses in Figs. 1-4 a regulator for controlling the flow of carbonated beverages (wherein “for controlling the flow of carbonated beverages” is seen as an intended use that doesn’t define over the structure of the prior art per MPEP 2111.02, and “carbonated beverages” is seen as handled material that doesn’t define over the structure of the prior art per MPEP 2115), provided with:
a main body comprising at least two parts 11, 12, 13, comprising a downstream part 12, 13, having a hole 30 for the exit of the carbonated beverage, and an upstream part 11, having an inlet hole 17 for the carbonated beverage under pressure, or
the main body comprising at least three parts 11, 12, 13, comprising the downstream part 13, the upstream part 11 and a central part 12,
the main body having at least two attachable and detachable parts 11, 12, 13 (which are attached and detachable with each other), wherein the at least two parts 11, 13 are equipped with frustum-shaped cavities (comprising the sections with frustrum-shaped seating surfaces 27, 48, as disclosed in col. 3, lines 10-11 and 34-35) that accommodate a double conical part 55,
wherein the double conical part 55 comprises an upstream cone portion 57 (comprising “frusto-conical surface 57,” as disclosed in col. 3, lines 44-45), the diameter of which increases in the direction of the beverage flow, and a downstream cone portion 64 (comprising “frusto-conical surface 64,” as disclosed in col. 3, lines 55-56), the diameter of which decreases in the direction of the beverage flow;
wherein the cavity of the downstream part 13 (alternatively including part 12) or the cavity of the central part 12, or both 12, 13, have the shape of a frustum-cone (comprising the “frusto-conical” surface 48, as disclosed in col. 3, lines 34-35), and have their internal walls with the same inclination, in relation to a longitudinal axis (of the downstream/central part(s) 13, 12), as the downstream cone portion 64;
wherein the cavity of the upstream part 11 in the shape of a frustum-cone (comprising the “frusto-conical” surface 27, as disclosed in col. 3, lines 10-11) has its internal walls having the same inclination, in relation to a longitudinal axis, as the upstream cone portion 57;
wherein the end of the downstream cone portion 64 transfers the force exerted by beverage pressure on the upstream conical portion 57, including the force exerted on the convex end (comprising the upstream end of the double conical part 55 adjacent frusto-conical surface(s) 27) on the upstream conical portion of the double conical part, to a biasing elastic material 65 (via stem 59) that deforms depending on the pressure of the beverage;
wherein the biasing elastic material 65 is also housed in a support 13 coupled to the downstream part or in a movable support 13 coupled to the downstream part.
Johnson lacks the biasing elastic material being an elastomeric material, and the elastomeric material being housed in the support/movable support.
With regard to the biasing elastic material specifically being an elastomeric material, Huang teaches in Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 4-9 a cylindrical elastomeric material (Fig. 2) as a well known alternative to a coil spring (Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the elastic coil spring that provides the biasing force on the valve member in the combination of Johnson and Howell to alternatively be an elastomeric material with a cylindrical shape to simplify manufacturing, as Huang teaches (paragraphs 6-8).
With regard to the support, Howell teaches in Figs. 1-6 a biasing elastic material 14 like the biasing elastic material disclosed by Johnson (which is modified in view of Huang to be an elastomeric material) wherein the biasing elastic material 14 is housed in a support/movable support 13 (specifically in channel 48 of the support 13), that also provides a guide for the valve stem 34, like the support disclosed by Johnson.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support disclosed by Johnson to be configured like the support taught by Howell, wherein the biasing elastic material is housed in the support to secure the position of the spring, as Howell teaches (paragraph 42).
Regarding claim 3, Huang teaches in Fig. 2 that the elastomeric material has a cylindrical shape, but Johnson, Howell, and Huang lack teaching the specific dimensions and properties of the elastomeric material, including a diameter that varies from 3 to 12 mm, its height varies from 1 to 8 mm, and an elastic constant between 70 and 190 N/mm. However, such specific dimensions and properties are not seen as having been demonstrated by the applicant as being critical, and the claimed dimensions and properties are seen as being obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention per MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A), since, like the applicant’s regulator, the valve disclosed by Johnson, and modified in view of Howell and Huang, is intended to be a small valve that functions as a check valve in which a certain amount of inlet pressure opens the valve.
Regarding claim 4, in modifying the support disclosed by Johnson in view of Howell, the carbonated beverage flows through a space (comprising the channel 48 in the support 13 taught by Howell in between portions of the support 13 and a downstream part of the main body 11) formed between the support for the elastomeric material (comprising the modification of the spring 65 disclosed by Johnson) and the cavity of the downstream part 12, 13 or the central part 12, or at a junction between the downstream part 12, 13 and central part 12.
Regarding claim 5, Johnson discloses a support of the elastomeric material that is modified in view of Howell, as previously discussed, but lacks teaching that the support for the elastomeric material is cylindrical and is equipped with arms that project in the radial direction of the support and accommodate themselves in cuts of the main body.
Howell teaches in Figs. 1-6 that the support 13 of elastic material is cylindrical (because the flanges 43 define portions or a cylinder) and is equipped with arms 51, 52 that project in the radial direction of the support 13 and accommodate themselves in cuts (comprising grooves 27, 28 and/or recesses 30, 31 in the main body 11). The arms 51 interact with the cuts (comprising grooves 27, 28 and/or recesses 30, 31) as a part of a bayonet connection (paragraph 45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support in the combination of Johnson, Howell, and Huang to be cylindrical with arms that project in the radial direction of the support and accommodate themselves in cuts of the main body, as Howell teaches (paragraph 45).
Regarding claim 6, Howell teaches in Figs. 1-6 that
Regarding claim 10, Howell teaches in Figs. 1-6 that the support 13 is provided with four arms (comprising two tabs 51, 52 and the axial extension of/from the flanges 43 that extend in the opposite direction from the shank 44).
Regarding claim 11, Johnson, in view of Howell and Huang, discloses a regulator/valve intended to be small and function as a check valve in which a certain amount of inlet pressure opens the valve, but Johnson, Howell, and Huang lack teaching the specific dimensions and properties of the regulator/valve, including that the regulator works in a pressure range of 0.5 to 6 kgf/cm2. However, such specific a specific dimension/property are not seen as having been demonstrated by the applicant as being critical, and the claimed dimension/property is seen as being obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention per MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A), since, like the applicant’s regulator, the valve disclosed by Johnson, and modified in view of Howell and Huang, is intended to be a small valve that functions as a check valve in which a certain amount of inlet pressure opens the valve.
Regarding claim 12, Johnson, in view of Howell and Huang, discloses a regulator, as previously discussed, but lacks teaching that said regulator is connected to a siphon or liquid intake tube of a beverage-dispensing valve. However, the recitation that the regulator “is connected to a siphon or liquid intake tube of a beverage-dispensing valve” recites structures external to the claimed invention – the regulator – so the siphon/liquid intake tube and beverage-dispensing valve aren’t seen as being positively claimed, and the capability of the regulator to be connected to a siphon/liquid intake tube isn’t seen as defining over the regulator/valve disclosed by Johnson because the regulator disclosed by Johnson could be connected to a siphon/liquid intake tube like how the regulator is threaded to an inlet pressure source 15.
Regarding claim 13, Johnson, in view of Howell and Huang, discloses a regulator, as previously discussed, but lacks teaching that said regulator is connected to a distal portion of the siphon or liquid intake tube of the beverage-dispensing valve. However, the recitation that the regulator “is connected to a distal portion of a siphon or liquid intake tube of the beverage-dispensing valve” recites structures external to the claimed invention – the regulator – so the siphon/liquid intake tube and beverage-dispensing valve aren’t seen as being positively claimed, and the capability of the regulator to be connected to a siphon/liquid intake tube isn’t seen as defining over the regulator/valve disclosed by Johnson because the regulator disclosed by Johnson could be connected to a siphon/liquid intake tube like how the regulator is threaded to an inlet pressure source 15.
Regarding claim 14, Johnson, in view of Howell and Huang, discloses a regulator, as previously discussed, but lacks teaching that said regulator is connected to a siphon or liquid intake tube of a beverage-dispensing valve. However, the recitation that the regulator “is connected to a siphon or liquid intake tube of a beverage-dispensing valve” and “the beverage-dispensing valve allows two dispensing modes: without foam and with foam” recites structures external to the claimed invention – the regulator – so the siphon/liquid intake tube and beverage-dispensing valve aren’t seen as being positively claimed, and the capability of the regulator to be connected to a siphon/liquid intake tube isn’t seen as defining over the regulator/valve disclosed by Johnson because the regulator disclosed by Johnson could be connected to a siphon/liquid intake tube like how the regulator is threaded to an inlet pressure source 15.
Regarding claim 15, Johnson, in view of Howell and Huang, discloses a regulator, as previously discussed, but lacks teaching that said regulator is connected to a siphon or liquid intake tube of a beverage-dispensing valve. However, the recitation that the regulator “is connected to a siphon or liquid intake tube of a beverage-dispensing valve” and “the beverage-dispensing valve is for a portable beverage packaging” recites structures external to the claimed invention – the regulator – so the siphon/liquid intake tube and beverage-dispensing valve aren’t seen as being positively claimed, and the capability of the regulator to be connected to a siphon/liquid intake tube isn’t seen as defining over the regulator/valve disclosed by Johnson because the regulator disclosed by Johnson could be connected to a siphon/liquid intake tube like how the regulator is threaded to an inlet pressure source 15.
Claim 2 (as understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Howell and Huang, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of DeCler et al. (US 2003/0196703).
Regarding claim 2, Johnson discloses in Figs. 1-4 that the double conical part 55 is also provided with a straight portion. Johnson lacks a straight portion where fins are arranged that fit in guides of the downstream part or in guides of the central part.
DeCler teaches in Figs. 1-6 a similar reciprocating valve member 30 comprising a straight portion where fins 36 are arranged that fit in guides (comprising retaining tabs 26a, the spaces between the tabs 26a) of the downstream/central part (comprising housing 10 or the downstream part of the housing 10 that is downstream of the seat 22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the double conical part in the combination of Johnson and Howell to include fins that fit in guides in the downstream/central part to provide guidance, stability, and alignment for the valve member, as DeCler teaches (paragraph 36). Even though Johnson teaches guidance for the valve stem portion, the guiding fins taught by DeCler provide guidance for the valve head, which provides more stability for the overall valve member and/or redundancies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and any claim objections set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The prior art fails to disclose or render obvious, in combination with the other limitations recited:
regarding claim 7, the arms are provided with guide pins being smaller in width than the arms which also project in the axial direction, but in the opposite direction to the flow of the beverage; and the guide pins are accommodated in recesses arranged in the cuts; and
regarding claim 8, the arms are provided with guide pins being smaller in width than the area of the arms; the guide pins project in the direction of the flow of fluid, and the guide pins are also accommodated in recesses arranged in the downstream part of the regulator.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Examiner Jonathan Waddy, whose telephone number is 571-270-3146. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (10:00AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881 or Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/J. W./
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753