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 .
Status of the Application
This action is responsive to the amendment dated 12/09/2025. Claims 11, 16, 18-29, and 34-38 remain pending. Claims 11, 16, 18-21, and 34-38 have been amended. Claim 39 is new. The applicant’s amendment has necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection below. This action is Final.
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections applied in the last Office Action. The 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant argues that Neither Hollars nor Takami anticipate or render obvious the flange and all limitations directed to the flange in the amendment. First Applicant argues that Takami does not teach a piercable gas outlet or piercing lance. The Examiner acknowledges this, but, as stated in the rejection, Takami is not used for teaching a piercable gas outlet. Takami is only used to teach the flange and limitations directed to the flange.
Applicant also argues that Hollars teaches away from having an outwardly extending flange with reference to para. [0027]. However, this section makes it clear that only the uppermost surface of the cap is intended to be space apart from the receiving opening. See Fig. 3 of Hollars which shows the uppermost surface having a gap when inserted. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to provide a cap with a flange around the bottom portion of the cap and be configured to properly interface with a receiving opening as intended by the user.
Applicant also argues that the flange would interfere with the venting process when installed. However, MPEP 2141.03 states:
"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
In view of MPEP 2141.03, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have the knowledge to utilize a venting feature similar to 26 in Hollars in the flange if required to ensure proper venting is maintained.
For at least these reasons, the 103 rejection over Hollars in view of Takami is maintained.
Applicant's amendments to the claims have necessitated further search and/or consideration and/or revision of the rejection, and accordingly, this action must be made Final.
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.
Claim(s) 20-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollars et al. (US 2014/0097184, hereafter “Hollars”) in view of Takami et al. (US 2021/0254787. Hereafter “Takami”).
Regarding claim 20, Hollars discloses a gas cylinder comprising: a body (the body portion of 100 as shown in Fig. 1) having a storage volume (the volume formed within 100) for pressurized gas and a neck (110) having a top surface (112) with a piercable gas outlet (120; para. [0020] – [0021]); a flange secured to the neck and arranged to support the gas cylinder for piercing of the gas outlet (para. [0026] discloses a shoulder that can be formed to limit the extent to which 110 is received into 22); a cap (2) secured to the neck and having a sidewall (23) extending around the top surface and defining an inner space (the space within 2) and an upper opening (26) to the inner space; and a gasket (3) located in the inner space and arranged to form a seal with the top surface and form a seal with a piercing element that extends into the inner space to pierce the gas outlet (para. [0026]), but fails to disclose the flange extending radially outwardly from the neck.
Takami teaches a flange secured to the neck and arranged to support the gas cylinder, the flange extending radially outwardly from the neck. (see Exhibit A)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the bottom portion of the cap of Hollars to include an outwardly extending flange as taught by Takami since this is combining prior art elements (flanges) according to known methods to yield predictable results (providing a radially extended portion for a part). The motivation for doing so is to provide a stop feature for any part that the cap and cylinder may be inserted into.
Hollars when modified by Takami necessarily disclose the flange is secured to the neck to receive forces from a support of a gas supply necessary to counter a piercing force of a lance to pierce the piercable gas outlet. (note that this is a purely functional limitation that the flange would be capable of performing)
Exhibit A
PNG
media_image1.png
710
441
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Hollars in view of Takami further disclose the gas cylinder of claim 20, wherein the flange and the cap are made as single unitary piece (as taught by Takami, the flange and cap are necessarily unitary), the flange extends radially outwardly from the sidewall of the cap, and an outer surface of the sidewall of the cap is unthreaded (as shown in Figs. 1-3 of Hollars).
Regarding claim 22, Hollars in view of Takami further disclose the gas cylinder of claim 20, wherein the sidewall of the cap is arranged to extend above the top surface of the neck (Fig. 2), and the gasket having an upper surface, a region of the upper surface being exposed at the upper opening of the cap and arranged to contact the piercing element received in the upper opening of the cap to pierce the gas outlet of the cylinder (Fig. 2), and a lower surface arranged to form the seal with the top surface of the neck. (Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 23, Hollars in view of Takami further disclose the gas cylinder of claim 20, wherein the cap includes an upper wall (25) having an annular shape that extends radially inwardly from the sidewall and includes a radially inner part that defines the upper opening. (Figs. 1-3)
Regarding claim 24, Hollars in view of Takami further disclose the gas cylinder of claim 23, wherein the gasket has an uppermost part of an upper surface located radially inward of the radially inner part of the upper wall. (Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 25, Hollars in view of Takami further disclose the gas cylinder of claim 24, wherein the uppermost part of the upper surface of the gasket extends into the upper opening. (Fig. 2; see how the gasket could extend into the opening when contact is made between 25 and 3)
Regarding claim 26, Hollars in view of Takami further disclose the gas cylinder of claim 20, wherein the inner space has a cylindrical shape and the gasket has a torus shape. (para. [0026])
Regarding claim 27, Hollars in view of Takami further disclose the gas cylinder of claim 20, wherein the sidewall is located at an upper portion of the cap and a lower portion of the cap includes an internal thread arranged to engage with an external thread on the cylinder neck. (Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 28, Hollars in view of Takami further disclose the gas cylinder of claim 20, wherein contact of the piercing element with the gasket causes the gasket to change shape and to at least partially conform to the shape of the inner space defined by the cap and the piercing element. (note that the piercing element is not positively recited and a piercing element that is large enough to form a sealed connection with the gasket would necessarily result in the gasket conforming in shape at least slightly as mentioned in para. [0010])
Regarding claim 29, Hollars in view of Takami further disclose the gas cylinder of claim 20, wherein the upper opening in the cap is operable to engage a piercing element and prevent rotation of the gas cylinder relative to the piercing element. (the assembly of Hollars is at least able to operate as such as mentioned in para. [0010])
Claim(s) 11, 16, 18, and 34-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grill (US 7,845,522) in view of Hollars and Takami.
Regarding claim 37, Grill discloses a pressurized gas source comprising: a gas cylinder (32); a housing (24) including a support (42) for the gas cylinder holding the pressurized gas, the support arranged to support the gas cylinder by the flange such that the piercable gas outlet of the gas cylinder is positioned above other portions of the gas cylinder (Figs. 1-3); a piercing lance (36) arranged to pierce the outlet of the gas cylinder to release the pressurized gas; a gas outlet (46) mounted to the housing, fluidly coupled to the piercing lance and arranged to provide the pressurized gas for delivery to the beverage container; and a gas flow path including a conduit (the flow path that allows fluid flow from the gas cylinder to the gas outlet), but fails to disclose the gas cylinder of claim 20; and the gas flow path is arranged to route flow of gas from the outlet of the gas cylinder upwardly and then downwardly to the gas outlet.
Hollars in view of Takami teaches the gas cylinder of claim 20 as applied above.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the gas cylinder of Grill to include the features of the gas cylinder of Hollars as outlined above in order to provide a system that has an improved seal between the cylinder and the gas delivery mechanism.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the pressurized gas source of Grill such that the gas flow path is arranged to route flow of gas from the outlet of the gas cylinder upwardly and then downwardly to the gas outlet since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide an arrangement of the gas flow path that is optimal based on user defined criteria.
Regarding claim 11, Grill in view of Hollars and Takami further disclose the pressurized gas source of claim 37, wherein the support for the gas cylinder includes a U-shaped plate (as shown in Figs. 1-3; see how the portion of 42 that bends off and extends to 52 is at least partially U-shaped) arranged to receive a portion of the neck of the gas cylinder.
Regarding claim 16, Grill in view of Hollars and Takami further disclose the pressurized gas source of claim 37, wherein the housing has an elongated shape with a top and a bottom, but fails to disclose the gas outlet is located at the bottom of the housing.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the gas outlet to be located at the bottom of the housing since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a position of the gas outlet that is optimal based on user defined criteria.
Regarding claim 18, Grill in view of Hollars and Takami further disclose the pressurized gas source of claim 37, wherein the housing includes a gas cylinder holder (the bottom portion of 24 as shown in Fig. 1) adapted to receive a first gas cylinder having a first size in an adapter, and to receive a second gas cylinder having a second size that is larger than the first size without the adapter. (the housing is capable of holding a first gas cylinder with an adapter and a second gas cylinder that is larger without an adapter)
Regarding claim 34, Grill in view of Hollars and Takami further disclose the pressurized gas source of claim 37, further comprising a regulator (34) supported by the housing and arranged to receive gas at a first pressure from the gas cylinder and to provide gas at a second pressure lower than the first pressure to the gas outlet.
Regarding claim 35, Grill in view of Hollars and Takami further disclose the pressurized gas source of claim 34, wherein the piercing lance is fixed relative to the regulator, and the regulator and the piercing lance being movable relative to the housing and the gas cylinder to pierce the outlet of the gas cylinder. (Col. 4, line 32 through Col. 5, line 10)
Regarding claim 36, Grill in view of Hollars and Takami further disclose the pressurized gas source of claim 35, wherein the gas cylinder support is arranged to hold the gas cylinder stationary relative to the housing during movement of the regulator and piercing lance to pierce the outlet of the gas cylinder. (Figs. 1-3; Col. 2, lines 24-45; see how the support may remain stationary while the piercing lance is piercing the gas cylinder)
Regarding claim 38, Grill in view of Hollars and Takami further disclose the pressurized gas source of claim 37, wherein the gas flow path includes a regulator (34) fluidly coupled to the piercing lance and to the conduit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 39 is allowed.
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 PAUL J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0544. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571 272-4881. 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.
/PAUL J GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753