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 § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luca (US 2020/0288746 A1).
In regards to claim 12, Luca discloses a method of frozen beverage machine filling (fill process for system 100, see abstract and fig. 1 and 4) comprising:
measuring a gas pressure at a gas side of an expansion tank (pressure sensors/switches 108 connected to gas side, see below annotated fig. 2 and paragraphs 28 and 37, where 136 is the gas side of tank 134);
measuring a liquid pressure at a liquid side of the expansion tank (pressure sensors/switches 108 connected to liquid side, see below annotated fig. 2 and paragraph 28 and 37, where 132 is the liquid side of tank 134), wherein the gas side of the expansion tank is separated from the liquid side of the expansion tank by a bladder (liquid and gas separator diaphragm 138);
comparing, with a controller (at least controller 600, fig. 6), the measured liquid pressure to a target gas side pressure (liquid pressure measurement received via input device 602, which includes pressure switches 108, see fig. 6 and paragraph 32); and initiating a gas pressure adjustment process (control system 600 controls the CO2 regulator to initiate gas pressure adjustment, see paragraphs 29-30 and initiates supply to replenish the system to above the cut in pressure, see paragraph 31 and fig. 4) when the liquid pressure measurements are less than a target gas side pressure (when supply line is depleted and the pressure at supply line 107 drops to or below the “cut in” pressure, and/or above the “cut off” pressure, see paragraphs 31-32, the liquid pressure is compared to the target gas pressure cut in or cut off values).
In regards to claim 13, Luca further discloses
receiving the target gas side pressure (receiving gas regulating “cut in” and “cut off” target pressure values by the processor from memory, input devices 602, data modules and tables of the controller 600, see paragraphs 32-34, 36; and fig. 6); and
suspending barrel filling operations until the gas pressure adjustment process is complete (fill process at step 204, ended at step 210 and kept suspended until pressure adjustment via steps 206 and 208 continues, see fig. 4) in response to target gas side pressure (above persistent cut in pressure fill process is suspended, see fig. 4 and paragraphs 31-32).
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luca (US 2020/0288746 A1) and in view of Frank (US 2016/0245564 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Luca discloses a frozen beverage dispensing machine (100, see abstract and fig. 1) comprising: a barrel (122); an expansion tank (134), the expansion tank having a gas side separated from a liquid side by a bladder (liquid and gas separator diaphragm 138), wherein the liquid side (132) is fluidly connected to the barrel (see fig. 1); a gas pressure sensor (pressure sensors/switches 108 connected to gas side, see below annotated fig. 2 and paragraphs 28 and 37, where 136 is the gas side of tank 134) operably connected to the gas side of the expansion tank (see fig. 2); a liquid pressure sensor (pressure sensors/switches 108 connected to liquid side, see below annotated fig. 2 and paragraph 28 and 37, where 132 is the liquid side of tank 134) operably connected to the liquid side of the expansion tank (see fig. 2); and a controller (at least controller 600, fig. 6) configured to receive liquid pressure measurements from the liquid pressure sensor (via input device 602, which includes pressure switches 108, see fig. 6 and paragraph 32), the controller is configured to initiate a fill process (fill process 168 initiated, see paragraph 38 and fig. 4) to provide a flow of liquid through the liquid side of the expansion tank into the barrel in response to the liquid pressure measurements (fill process continued and/or initiated in response to measured liquid pressure falling below the “cut off” and/or “cut in” pressure values, see paragraph 38 and fig. 4), and
PNG
media_image1.png
770
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the controller (600) is configured to initiate a gas pressure adjustment process (control system 600 controls the CO2 regulator to initiate gas pressure adjustment, see paragraphs 29-30 and initiates supply to replenish the system to above the cut in pressure, see paragraph 31 and fig. 4) when the liquid pressure measurements are less than a target gas side pressure (when supply line is depleted and the pressure at supply line 107 drops to or below the “cut in” pressure, and/or above the “cut off” pressure, see paragraphs 31-32, the liquid pressure is compared to the target gas pressure cut in or cut off values).
However, Luca does not explicitly teach that the pressure sensors are pressure transducers.
Frank discloses that the liquid and gas side pressure sensors at the expansion tank (225) are pressure transducers (pressure transducers 220, 265, see paragraphs 45-48 and fig. 2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the frozen beverage dispensing machine of Luca by providing liquid and gas pressure transducers as taught by Frank as pressure sensors to the dispensing machine in order to cost-effectively improve accuracy of pressure measurement within harsh conditions.
In regards to claim 2, Luca as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses a valve (gas regulating valve, see below annotated fig. 2 and paragraph 30) connected between the gas side of the expansion tank (gas side, see above annotated fig. 2) and a gas source (from gas source 106, see fig. 2 and paragraph 28); however, Luca does not explicitly teach that if a gas pressure measured at the gas pressure transducer is less than the target gas side pressure, the valve is opened until the gas pressure measured at the gas pressure transducer equals the target gas side pressure.
Frank teaches a gas valve (valve 205, see fig. 2 and paragraph 42) between the gas side of the expansion tank (CO2 gas side of 225, see fig. 2) and a gas source (CO2, fig. 2) and in the gas pressure adjustment process if a gas pressure measured at the gas pressure transducer is less than the target gas side pressure (see steps 410 to 430, where gas pressure is less than the desired pressure, fig. 4 and paragraph 48), the valve is opened until the gas pressure measured at the gas pressure transducer equals the target gas side pressure (supplying medium by opening valve at step 430, see fig. 4 and paragraph 48).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the frozen beverage dispensing machine by reprogramming the controller of Luca to open the gas valve between the gas side of the expansion tank and a gas source until the gas pressure measured at the gas pressure transducer equals the target gas side pressure if a gas pressure measured at the gas pressure transducer is less than the target gas side pressure in the gas pressure adjustment process based on the teachings of Frank in order to control the pressures and supply of medium/fluid based on desired drink profiles (see paragraph 47, Frank).
In regards to claim 3, Luca as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses a vent (gas regulating vent valve 210, see paragraph 42) connected to the gas side of the expansion tank (see paragraph 42); however, Luca does not explicitly teach that if a gas pressure measured at the gas pressure transducer is greater than the target gas side pressure, the valve is opened until the gas pressure measured at the gas pressure transducer equals the target gas side pressure.
Frank teaches a gas vent valve (vent valve 210, see fig. 2 and paragraph 42) connected to the gas side of the expansion tank (CO2 gas side of 225, see fig. 2) and in the gas pressure adjustment process if a gas pressure measured at the gas pressure transducer is greater than the target gas side pressure (see steps 410 to 450, where gas pressure is greater than the desired pressure, fig. 4 and paragraph 48), the vent valve is opened until the gas pressure measured at the gas pressure transducer equals the target gas side pressure (venting medium by opening valve at step 450, see fig. 4 and paragraph 48).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the frozen beverage dispensing machine by reprogramming the controller of Luca to open the gas vent valve connected to the gas side of the expansion tank until the gas pressure measured at the gas pressure transducer equals the target gas side pressure if a gas pressure measured at the gas pressure transducer is greater than the target gas side pressure in the gas pressure adjustment process based on the teachings of Frank in order to control the pressures and supply of medium/fluid based on desired drink profiles (see paragraph 47, Frank).
In regards to claim 4, Luca as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the controller (600) is configured to execute the gas pressure adjustment process after the liquid pressure measurement falls below the target gas side pressure (control system 600 initiates supply to replenish the system above the cut in pressure, see paragraph 31, supply line is depleted and the liquid pressure at the supply line 107 drops below the “cut off” pressure, see paragraph 31, the liquid pressure is compared to the gas pressure values); however, Luca does not explicitly teach that the controller operates to add or vent gas pressure from the tank until the gas pressure equals the target.
Frank discloses a gas valve (valve 205, see fig. 2 and paragraph 42) and a gas vent valve (vent valve 210, see fig. 2 and paragraph 42) and a controller (16) configured to, in the gas pressure adjustment process, compare the gas pressure measurement to the target gas side pressure (see steps 410 to 430, where gas pressure is less than the desired pressure, fig. 4 and paragraph 48; and see steps 410 to 450, where gas pressure is greater than the desired pressure, fig. 4 and paragraph 48), and operate to add or vent gas pressure from the gas side of the expansion tank until the gas pressure measurement equals the target gas side pressure (supplying medium by opening valve at step 430, see fig. 4 and paragraph 48; and venting medium by opening valve at step 450, see fig. 4 and paragraph 48).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the frozen beverage dispensing machine by reprogramming the controller of Luca to compare the gas pressure measured at the gas pressure transducer to the target gas side pressure and operate the gas and vent valves until the gas pressure measured at the gas pressure transducer equals the target gas side pressure in the gas pressure adjustment process based on the teachings of Frank in order to control the pressures and supply of medium/fluid based on desired drink profiles (see paragraph 47, Frank).
In regards to claim 5, Luca as modified teaches the limitations of claim 4 and further discloses that the gas pressure adjustment process is a calibration routine and the target gas side pressure is the same as a previous target gas side pressure (gas regulating “cut in” and “cut off” pressure values are fixed and prestored in data modules and tables of the controller 600, see paragraphs 32-34 and 36, therefore target gas side pressure values are same for all gas pressure adjustment processes and dispensing machine is recalibrated using the same target pressures).
In regards to claim 6, Luca as modified teaches the limitations of claim 4 and further discloses that the controller (600) is configured to execute the gas pressure adjustment process after the liquid pressure measurements fall below the target gas side pressure (control system 600 controls the CO2 regulator to initiate gas pressure adjustment, see paragraphs 29-30 and initiates supply to replenish the system above the cut in pressure, see paragraph 31 and fig. 4, when supply line is depleted and the pressure at supply line 107 drops below the “cut off” pressure, see paragraphs 31-32, the liquid pressure is compared to the target gas pressure cut off value) by a predetermined amount (controller 600 configured to execute gas pressure adjustment with regulator and valves 128 for any pressure value below cut off value, see paragraph 36 and fig. 4, where the predetermined amount by the controller is any amount below cut off value that is programmed in the controller, see paragraphs 33-35). In addition, Frank discloses executing gas pressure adjustment process after liquid pressure measurements fall below target gas side pressure by a predetermined amount (initiating gas pressure adjustment when pressure measurement falls below a desired pressure range, see fig. 4 and paragraphs 47-48).
In regards to claim 7, Luca as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the controller (600) is configured to receive a user input of the target gas side pressure (via input/output interface system 620, controller 600 is programmed to receive user input of target pressure, see fig. 6 and paragraphs 32, 35), and the controller further delays initiation of the gas pressure adjustment process until after the liquid pressure measurements fall below the target gas side pressure (control system 600 controls the CO2 regulator to initiate gas pressure adjustment, see paragraphs 29-30 and initiates supply to replenish the system above the cut in pressure, see paragraph 31 and fig. 4, when supply line is depleted and the pressure at supply line 107 drops below the “cut off” pressure, see paragraphs 31-32, the liquid pressure is compared to the target gas pressure cut off value).
In regards to claim 8, Luca as modified teaches the limitations of claim 7 and further discloses that the controller (600) operates to prevent the fill process until the gas pressure adjustment process is completed (fill process at step 204, ended at step 210 and kept suspended until pressure adjustment via steps 206 and 208 continues, see fig. 4) in response to target gas side pressure (above persistent cut in pressure fill process is suspended, see fig. 4 and paragraphs 31-32).
However, Luca does not explicitly teach using the target gas side pressure received from user input.
Frank teaches that the desired pressure range for initiating or suspending fill process is set by user preference through a user interface (see paragraph 42 and block 410, fig. 4).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reprogrammed the controller of the frozen beverage dispensing machine of Luca to receive the target gas side pressure as a user input and suspend the fill process until the gas pressure adjustment process is completed in response to user input target gas side pressure based on the teachings of Frank in order to set the desired pressure range and with it the desired drink profile depending of the user’s preference (see paragraph 47, Frank).
In regards to claim 9, Luca as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 except that the target pressure is a pressure range.
However, Frank teaches that the target gas side pressure is a target gas side pressure range (see desired gas side pressure range, fig. 4 and paragraph 48).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the frozen beverage dispensing machine by reprogramming the controller of Luca to include a target gas side pressure range for operation of the frozen beverage dispensing machine based on the teachings of Frank in order to allow the product within the barrel to be consistently frozen to maintain drink quality and avoid dispensing frozen but inconsistent and poor quality product (see paragraph 39, Frank).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luca (US 2020/0288746 A1) in view of Frank as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Seiler (US 2018/0199589 A1).
In regards to claims 10 and 11, Luca as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the controller is configured to determine an operational mode of the frozen beverage machine (controller 600 determines defrost and refrigeration processes for the refrigeration system of the frozen beverage machine, see paragraphs 39-40, 43 and fig. 5) and based upon the determined operational mode, determine the viscosity of the contents of the barrel in comparison to the cut in and cut out values (see paragraphs 39-40). In addition, Luca discloses determining liquid cut in and cut off pressures at the barrel (see fig. 4 and paragraphs 32-33, 39, where cut in and cut off values are determined by obtaining the values from memory and/or look up table for fill or freeze or defrost operational modes) and determining various operating parameters including cut in and cut out pressure values based on operating freezing or defrosting modes (see paragraph 56).
However, Luca does not explicitly teach determining cut in and cut out pressures to be lower values for defrost mode than freeze mode.
Seiler discloses a frozen beverage machine control system (see abstract) including a controller (16), that is configured to determine the liquid cut in pressure and a liquid cut out pressure based on a determined operational mode of the frozen beverage machine (set points determined at steps 525 and 545 onwards based on the selected mode of operation of the frozen beverage machine at steps 510, 515, see fig. 5 and paragraph 72), wherein the liquid cut in pressure and the liquid cut out pressure are lower values if the operational mode is a defrost mode than if the operational mode is a freeze mode (see dynamic fill and vent setpoints for defrost and freeze cycles, paragraphs 15-17; wherein the target pressure setpoints being lowered during defrost in comparison to the freeze mode, see paragraph 58, 65, 78, 103-105 and paragraphs 118-120).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reprogrammed the controller of the frozen beverage dispensing machine of Luca to determine the liquid cut in pressure and a liquid cut out pressure based on a determined operational mode of the frozen beverage machine, wherein the liquid cut in pressure and the liquid cut out pressure are lower values if the operational mode is a defrost mode than if the operational mode is a freeze mode based on the teachings of Seiler in order to allow maintaining an acceptable product within the barrel while prolonging the lifespans of the fill and vent conditions by broadening or narrowing the fill and vent pressure conditions (see paragraph 148, Seiler).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luca (US 2020/0288746 A1) as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of Frank (US 2016/0245564 A1).
In regards to claim 14, Luca teaches the limitations of claim 12 and further discloses a valve (gas regulating valve, see below annotated fig. 2 and paragraph 30) connected between the gas side of the expansion tank (gas side, see above annotated fig. 2) and a gas source (from gas source 106, see fig. 2 and paragraph 28); and a vent (gas regulating vent valve 210, see paragraph 42) connected to the gas side of the expansion tank (see paragraph 42).
However, Luca does not explicitly teach that if a gas pressure measured at the gas side of the expansion tank is less than the target gas side pressure, the valve is opened; and if a gas pressure measured at the gas side of the expansion tank is greater than the target gas side pressure, the vent valve is opened.
Frank teaches a gas valve (valve 205, see fig. 2 and paragraph 42) between the gas side of the expansion tank (CO2 gas side of 225, see fig. 2) and a gas source (CO2, fig. 2) and if a gas pressure measured at the gas pressure transducer is less than the target gas side pressure (this is a contingent limitation in a method claim, see MPEP 2111.04; however, Frank teaches steps 410 to 430, where gas pressure is less than the desired pressure, fig. 4 and paragraph 48), the valve is opened until the gas pressure measured at the gas pressure transducer equals the target gas side pressure (supplying medium by opening valve at step 430, see fig. 4 and paragraph 48); and a gas vent valve (vent valve 210, see fig. 2 and paragraph 42) connected to the gas side of the expansion tank (CO2 gas side of 225, see fig. 2) and if a gas pressure measured at the gas pressure transducer is greater than the target gas side pressure (this is a contingent limitation in a method claim, see MPEP 2111.04; however, Frank teaches steps 410 to 450, where gas pressure is greater than the desired pressure, fig. 4 and paragraph 48), the vent valve is opened until the gas pressure measured at the gas pressure transducer equals the target gas side pressure (venting medium by opening valve at step 450, see fig. 4 and paragraph 48).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the frozen beverage dispensing machine by reprogramming the controller of Luca to open the gas valve between the gas side of the expansion tank and a gas source if a gas pressure measured at the gas pressure transducer is less than the target gas side pressure and open vent valve if a gas pressure measured at the gas pressure transducer is greater than the target gas side pressure based on the teachings of Frank until the gas pressure measured at the gas pressure transducer equals the target gas side pressure in order to control the pressures and supply of medium/fluid based on desired drink profiles (see paragraph 47, Frank).
Claim(s) 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luca (US 2020/0288746 A1) and in view of Seiler (2018/0199589 A1).
In regards to claims 15 and 16, Luca discloses a method of frozen beverage machine filling (fill process for system 100, see abstract and fig. 1 and 4) comprising:
determining an operational mode of the frozen beverage machine (controller 600 determines defrost and refrigeration processes for the refrigeration system of the frozen beverage machine, see paragraphs 39-40, 43 and fig. 5);
determining a cut in pressure and a cut out pressure for operational mode (see fig. 4 and paragraphs 32-33, 39, where cut in and cut off values are determined by obtaining the values from memory and/or look up table for fill or freeze or defrost operational modes) and determining various operating parameters including cut in and cut out pressure values based on operating freezing or defrosting modes (see paragraph 56);
measuring a liquid pressure within the frozen beverage machine (pressure sensors/switches 108 connected to liquid side, see below annotated fig. 2 and paragraph 28 and 37, where 132 is the liquid side of tank 134);
comparing the liquid pressure to the cut in pressure and the cut out pressure (comparing liquid pressure with cut and cut off pressures at step 202, fig. 4).; and
determining an action of the frozen beverage machine based upon the comparison (fill operation by opening or closing valves at steps 204, 208, based on cut in, cut off comparisons, see fig. 4).
However, Luca does not explicitly teach changing cut in and cut out pressures based upon operational mode.
Seiler discloses a frozen beverage machine control system (see abstract) including a controller (16), that is configured to determine the liquid cut in pressure and a liquid cut out pressure based on a determined operational mode of the frozen beverage machine (set points determined at steps 525 and 545 onwards based on the selected mode of operation of the frozen beverage machine at steps 510, 515, see fig. 5 and paragraph 72), wherein the liquid cut in pressure and the liquid cut out pressure are lower values if the operational mode is a defrost mode than if the operational mode is a freeze mode (see dynamic fill and vent setpoints for defrost and freeze cycles, paragraphs 15-17; wherein the target pressure setpoints being lowered during defrost in comparison to the freeze mode, see paragraph 58, 65, 78, 103-105 and paragraphs 118-120).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reprogrammed the controller of the frozen beverage dispensing machine of Luca to determine the liquid cut in pressure and a liquid cut out pressure based on a determined operational mode of the frozen beverage machine based on the teachings of Seiler in order to allow maintaining an acceptable product within the barrel while prolonging the lifespans of the fill and vent conditions by broadening or narrowing the fill and vent pressure conditions (see paragraph 148, Seiler).
In regards to claim 17, Luca as modified teaches the limitations of claim 15 and Seiler further discloses determining the cut in pressure and the cut out pressure comprises calculating the cut in pressure and/or the cut out pressure (see cut in and cut off pressure setpoints calculations, paragraphs 115-120). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reprogrammed the controller of the frozen beverage dispensing machine of Luca to determine the liquid cut in pressure and a liquid cut out pressure by calculation based on the teachings of Seiler in order to adjust the pressures and supply of medium/fluid based on desired drink profiles (see paragraph 47, Frank).
In regards to claim 18, Luca as modified teaches the limitations of claim 15 and further discloses
opening at least one valve to fill a barrel (168) of the frozen beverage machine (step 204) if the liquid pressure is below the cut in value (this is a contingent limitation in a method claim, see MPEP 2111.04; however, Luca teaches fill below cut off value, see fig. 4);
closing at least one valve to stop filling of the barrel of the frozen beverage machine (step 208) if the liquid pressure is above the cut out value (this is a contingent limitation in a method claim, see MPEP 2111.04; however, Luca teaches fill stopped above cut in value, see fig. 4); and
maintaining a current valve operation (step 206) if the liquid pressure is between the cut in value and the cut out value (this is a contingent limitation in a method claim, see MPEP 2111.04; however, Luca teaches fill/non-filling state maintained between cut off and cut in values, see fig. 4).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luca (US 2020/0288746 A1) in view of Seiler and further in view of Frank (2016/0245564 A1).
In regards to claims 19 and 20, Luca as modified teaches the limitations of claim 15 and further discloses
referencing a lookup table of cut in pressure values and cut out pressure values (see fig. 6 and paragraphs 32-33, 39, where cut in and cut off values are referenced from lookup tables stored in the memory of the controller);
selecting a cut in pressure value and a cut out pressure value based upon the determined operational mode (see fig. 4 and paragraphs 32-33, 39, where cut in and cut off values are determined by obtaining the values from memory and/or look up table for fill or freeze or defrost operational modes; Also see paragraph 56).
However, Luca does not explicitly teach receiving a user set overrun value;
Frank teaches that the desired pressure range for initiating or suspending fill process is set by user preference through a user interface (see paragraph 42 and block 410, fig. 4).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reprogrammed the controller of the frozen beverage dispensing machine of Luca to receive the target gas side pressure and cut in and cut off pressure values as user inputs via input/output systems to be stored in the memory of the controller for various operational modes based on the teachings of Frank in order to set the desired pressure range and with it the desired drink profile depending of the user’s preference (see paragraph 47, Frank).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MERAJ A SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-3027. The examiner can normally be reached on M-R 9:00-1:00 pm.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached on 571-270-7740. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MERAJ A SHAIKH/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763