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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 16-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayne (3506460) in view of Moore (WO2018112053).
Bayne teaches with respect to Independent claim 16, an apparatus for preserving beverages (col. 2 lines 45-46), having a measuring device (col. 4 line 5 ref. 2 fig. 1 flow meter) configured for determining a flow rate of a liquid flowing through a beverage line (col. 4 lines 5-10; perishable material), and having a device (col. 2 lines 70-72; col. 3 lines 4-7; pressure on the sterilizing agent) configured to convey a preserving agent (col. 3 lines 63-67) into the beverage line (col. 3 lines 63-67) and having at least one further measuring device (col. 3 lines 20-21 ref. 13 flow rate measuring unit sterilizing agent) configured to determine at least one further characteristic measured value (col. 3 lines 22-23 ref. 13 flow rate output signal), wherein the apparatus has a control device (col. 4 line 23 ref. 26; controller unit) configured for controlling the device (col. 4 lines 27-30; pressure), the device can be controlled as a function of a flow rate determined by the measuring device (col. 4 line 5 ref. 2 fig. 1 flow meter) and as a function of the further measured value (col. 3 lines 71-73; col. 4 lines 22-30; flow of sterilizing agent to desired ratio), wherein the apparatus has a recording device configured for recording at least the further characteristic measured value repeatedly (col. 4 lines 2-4 col. 4 lines 30-35).
Bayne teaches automatic and controlled additive addition to beverages and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of controlled concentration of beverages within precise limits of concentration by feedback systems as further taught by Bayne (col. 4 lines 55-58).
Moore teaches a beverage apparatus comprising first and second lines comprising flow meters and variable flow controllers (par. 0104) for determining and controlling concentration by controlling flow rate of liquids by pump devices (par. 0106).
Thus since Bayne teaches the preserving agent under pressure to enter the flow stream of the beverage (col. 3 lines 63-65) and since Moore teaches a same pressurization device, such as in the instant case pumps (par. 0119). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one device for controlling flow by pressurizing of the perishable liquid of Bayne with a pump for its same art recognized purpose as taught by Bayne and achieving a same desired automatic and controlled additive addition to beverages and achieving a same controlled concentration of beverages within precise limits of concentration by feedback systems as further taught by Bayne (col. 4 lines 55-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to controlling flow by pressurizing of the perishable liquid of Bayne with a pump as taught by Moore (par. 0106) for its same art recognized purpose as taught by Bayne and achieving a same desired automatic and controlled additive addition to beverages and achieving a same controlled concentration of beverages within precise limits of concentration by feedback systems as further taught by Bayne (col. 4 lines 55-58).
Though silent to a storage device. Bayne teaches a controller and a recorder device configured for recording at least the further characteristic measured value repeatedly (col. 4 lines 2-4 col. 4 lines 30-35).
Moore teaches a same controller and recorder device further comprising a memory (par. 0122). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the known technology advancement of Moore, namely programmed processing devices comprising memory, i.e storage device for its art recognized and applicants intended purpose of storing at least the further characteristic measured value repeatedly as taught by Moore and achieving a same controlled concentration of beverages within precise limits of concentration by feedback systems as further taught by Bayne (col. 4 lines 55-58).
Bayne teaches with respect to Independent claim 26, a method for monitoring an apparatus for preserving beverages (col. 2 lines 45-46), wherein a measuring device (col. 4 line 5 ref. 2 fig. 1 flow meter) determines a flow rate of a liquid flowing through a beverage line (col. 4 lines 5-10; perishable material), and a pressure device (col. 2 lines 70-72; col. 3 lines 4-7; pressure on the sterilizing agent) delivers a preservative (col. 3 lines 63-67) where it is noted the preferable type is taken as an option not required, into the beverage line (col. 3 lines 63-67), and at least one further measuring device (col. 3 lines 20-21 ref. 13 flow rate measuring unit sterilizing agent) determines at least one further characteristic measured value (col. 3 lines 22-23 ref. 13 flow rate output signal), wherein the apparatus has a control device (col. 4 line 23 ref. 26; controller unit) for controlling the pressure device (col. 4 lines 27-30; pressure), and the device is controlled as a function of a flow rate determined by the measuring device (col. 4 line 5 ref. 2 fig. 1 flow meter) and as a function of the further measured value (col. 3 lines 71-73; col. 4 lines 22-30; flow of sterilizing agent to desired ratio), wherein the apparatus has a recording device configured for recording at least the further characteristic measured value repeatedly (col. 4 lines 2-4 col. 4 lines 30-35) and/or cyclically (col. 4 lines 2-4 col. 4 lines 30-35).
Bayne teaches automatic and controlled additive addition to beverages and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of controlled concentration of beverages within precise limits of concentration by feedback systems as further taught by Bayne (col. 4 lines 55-58).
Moore teaches a beverage apparatus comprising first and second lines comprising flow meters and variable flow controllers (par. 0104) for determining and controlling concentration by controlling flow rate of liquids by pump devices (par. 0106).
Thus since Bayne teaches the preserving agent under pressure to enter the flow stream of the beverage (col. 3 lines 63-65) and since Moore teaches a same pressurization device, such as in the instant case pumps (par. 0119) for its same purpose of controlling flow rate under pressure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one device for controlling flow by pressurizing of the perishable liquid of Bayne with a pump for its same art recognized purpose as taught by Bayne of achieving a same desired automatic and controlled additive addition to beverages and achieving a same controlled concentration of beverages within precise limits of concentration by feedback systems as further taught by Bayne (col. 4 lines 55-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to controlling flow by pressurizing of the perishable liquid of Bayne with a pump as taught by Moore (par. 0106) for its same art recognized purpose as taught by Bayne of achieving a same desired automatic and controlled additive addition to beverages and achieving a same controlled concentration of beverages within precise limits of concentration by feedback systems as further taught by Bayne (col. 4 lines 55-58).
Though silent to a storage device. Bayne teaches a controller and a recorder device configured for recording at least the further characteristic measured value repeatedly (col. 4 lines 2-4 col. 4 lines 30-35).
Moore teaches a same controller and recorder device further comprising a memory (par. 0122). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the known technology advancement of Moore, namely programmed processing devices comprising memory, i.e storage device for its art recognized and applicants intended purpose of storing at least the further characteristic measured value repeatedly as taught by Moore and achieving a same controlled concentration of beverages within precise limits of concentration by feedback systems as further taught by Bayne (col. 4 lines 55-58).
Claim 17, wherein the apparatus has at least two further measuring devices (col. 2 line 65-67; col. 3 line 3-6; col. 3 lines 14-16, col. 3 line 73), which each measuring device is configured to determine at least one measured value characteristic of the operation of the apparatus (col. 2 line 65-67; col. 3 line 3-6; col. 3 lines 14-16, col. 3 line 73).
Claim 18, wherein at least one measured value is selected from a group of measured values selected from values which are characteristic of a pressure of the preservative (col. 3 lines 71-73), of a flow rate of the preservative (col. 3 lines 20-22) and of the presence of a gas (col. 3 lines 1-4).
Claim 19, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the known technology advancement of Moore, namely an interface which is configured to enable data communication with a further control device and/or a further storage device as taught by Moore (par. 0122) for its art recognized and applicants intended purpose of controlling by data communication and achieving a same controlled concentration of beverages within precise limits of concentration by feedback systems as further taught by Bayne (col. 4 lines 55-58).
Claim 20, where the storage device is taken as above. Bayne teaches the device is configured for a plurality of different values characteristic of the apparatus and/or its operation (col. 2 line 65-67; col. 3 line 3-6; col. 3 lines 14-16, col. 3 line 73).
Claim 21, wherein the device preferably has a display device configured for displaying data (col. 4 lines 2-4 col. 4 lines 30-35) and/or measured values (col. 4 lines 2-4 col. 4 lines 30-35) which are characteristic of the apparatus and/or the operation of the apparatus (col. 4 lines 2-4 col. 4 lines 30-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an operating device configured to enable user input as taught by Moore (par. 0115) for its art recognized purpose of providing user selection or selection of concentration or beverage type as taught by Bayne.
Claim 22, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide a further communication interface configured to enable data to be transmitted to a storage device external to the apparatus as taught by Moore (par. 0121) for its art recognized and applicants intended purpose of controlling by data communication and achieving a same controlled concentration of beverages within precise limits of concentration by feedback systems as further taught by Bayne (col. 4 lines 55-58).
Claim 23, where fault condition is taken with respect to error as taught by Bayne (col. 4 line 25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the known technology advancement of Moore, namely programmed processing devices configured for storing data characteristic of a fault condition of the installation for its art recognized and applicants intended purpose of storing at least the further characteristic measured value repeatedly as taught by Moore and achieving a same controlled concentration of beverages within precise limits of concentration by feedback systems as further taught by Bayne (col. 4 lines 55-58).
Claim 24, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the known technology advancement of Moore, namely a processing device configured to output at least one value characteristic of a forecast on the basis of previously recorded and/or stored values thus achieving a same controlled concentration of beverages within precise limits of concentration by feedback systems as further taught by Bayne (col. 4 lines 55-58).
Claim 25, since Bayne teaches repeated recording of a same values though silent to time intervals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the claimed time intervals thus achieving a same output for achieving a same controlled concentration of beverages within precise limits of concentration by feedback systems as further taught by Bayne (col. 4 lines 55-58).
Claim 27, Moore is taken as above with respect to the storage device and storing. Bayne teaches a plurality of measured values characteristic of the operation are recorded by means of a plurality of measuring devices (col. 2 line 65-67; col. 3 line 3-6; col. 3 lines 14-16, col. 3 line 73), which each measuring device is configured to determine at least one measured value characteristic of the operation of the apparatus (col. 2 line 65-67; col. 3 line 3-6; col. 3 lines 14-16, col. 3 line 73).
Claim 28, since Bayne teaches repeated recording of a same values though silent to time intervals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the claimed time intervals thus achieving a same output for achieving a same controlled concentration of beverages within precise limits of concentration by feedback systems as further taught by Bayne (col. 4 lines 55-58).
Claim 29, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide a further storage device as taught by Moore (par. 0121) for its art recognized and applicants intended purpose of controlling by data communication and achieving a same controlled concentration of beverages within precise limits of concentration by feedback systems as further taught by Bayne (col. 4 lines 55-58).
Claim 30, Bayne teaches data characteristic of fault states of the apparatus are recorded (col. 4 line 25 “error”).
Claim 31, wherein at least one measured value is selected from a group of measured values selected from values which are characteristic of a pressure of the preservative (col. 3 lines 71-73), of a flow rate of the preservative (col. 3 lines 20-22) and of the presence of a gas (col. 3 lines 1-4).
Claim 32, wherein the device has an interface (measured values col. 4 lines 2-4 col. 4 lines 30-35) which are characteristic of the apparatus and/or the operation of the apparatus (col. 4 lines 2-4 col. 4 lines 30-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an interface which is configured to enable data communication with a further control device and/or a further storage device as taught by Moore (par. 0115) for its art recognized purpose of providing user selection or selection of concentration or beverage type as taught by Bayne.
Claim 33, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide a further storage device the storage device is configured for storing a plurality of different values characteristic of the apparatus and/or its operation as taught by Moore (par. 0121) for its art recognized and applicants intended purpose of controlling by data communication and achieving a same controlled concentration of beverages within precise limits of concentration by feedback systems as further taught by Bayne (col. 4 lines 55-58).
Claim 34, Bayne teaches the device preferably has a display device configured for displaying data (col. 4 lines 2-4 col. 4 lines 30-35) and/or measured values (col. 4 lines 2-4 col. 4 lines 30-35) which are characteristic of the apparatus and/or the operation of the apparatus (col. 4 lines 2-4 col. 4 lines 30-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an operating device configured to enable user input as taught by Moore (par. 0115) for its art recognized purpose of providing user selection or selection of concentration or beverage type as taught by Bayne.
Claim 35, since Bayne teaches repeated recording of a same values though silent to time intervals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the claimed time intervals thus achieving a same output for achieving a same controlled concentration of beverages within precise limits of concentration by feedback systems as further taught by Bayne (col. 4 lines 55-58).
Response to Arguments
With respect to applicants urging directed to Bayne and applicants urging Bayne is silent to a pump. Bayne teaches the sterilizing agent controlled to adjust the flow of the agent in the line to a desired rate (col. 2 lines 62-67). Though applicant urges Bayne teaches gas within the sterilizing tank, importantly the gas of Bayne provides a pressure for adding the sterilizing at a desired rate. Thus Bayne teaches the preserving agent under pressure to enter the flow stream of the beverage (col. 3 lines 63-65) where Moore is relied upon with respect to a same pressurization, such as in the instant case pumps (par. 0119).
With respect to applicants urging Moore are different in object and construction. Importantly Moore teaches controlling flow by pressurizing with a pump as taught by Moore (par. 0106) for its same art recognized purpose as taught by Bayne of achieving a same desired automatic and controlled additive addition to beverages and achieving a same controlled concentration of beverages within precise limits of concentration by feedback systems as further taught by Bayne (col. 4 lines 55-58).
With respect to applicants urging Bayne is silent to two measured values. Bayne teaches a measuring device (col. 4 line 5 ref. 2 fig. 1 flow meter) configured for determining a flow rate of a liquid flowing through a beverage line (col. 4 lines 5-10; perishable material). Bayne further teaches a flow rate measuring device which measures the flow the sterilizing agent (col. 3 lines 20-23) and more specifically Bayne teaches the device can be controlled as a function of a flow rate determined by the measuring device (col. 4 line 5 ref. 2 fig. 1 flow meter) and as a function of the further measured value (col. 3 lines 71-73; col. 4 lines 22-30; flow of sterilizing agent to desired ratio), wherein the apparatus has a recording device configured for recording at least the further characteristic measured value repeatedly (col. 4 lines 2-4 col. 4 lines 30-35).
With respect to applicants urging Bayne merely outputs a signal to visually indicate the flow rate, importantly Bayne teaches determined flow of sterilizing agent and the flow the of the beverage to calculate the actual proportion of concentration of sterilizing agent introduced into the flow the beverage (col. 4 lines 5-30). The urged “visually indicate the flow rate” is “in addition” and not limited to.
Bayne specifically teaches regulating of the flow rate of the perishable liquid (col. 4 lines 5-7). “Flow meter, which measures the flow of perishable material in line 1”. For its art recognized and applicants claimed “the device can be controlled as a function of a flow rate determined by the measuring device (col. 4 line 5 ref. 2 fig. 1 flow meter) and as a function of the further measured value (col. 3 lines 71-73; col. 4 lines 22-30; flow of sterilizing agent to desired ratio)”.
With respect to applicants urged “storage of values”. Bayne teaches a controller and a recorder device configured for recording at least the further characteristic measured value repeatedly (col. 4 lines 2-4 col. 4 lines 30-35).
Moore teaches a same controller and recorder device further comprising a memory (par. 0122). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the known technology advancement of Moore, namely programmed processing devices comprising memory, i.e storage device for its art recognized and applicants intended purpose of storing at least the further characteristic measured value repeatedly as taught by Moore and achieving a same controlled concentration of beverages within precise limits of concentration by feedback systems as further taught by Bayne (col. 4 lines 55-58).
With respect to applicants urging Moore is silent to storage of values and merely teaches “memory”. Importantly Bayne teaches “a recorder” and more specifically as claimed the recorder for recording at least the further characteristic measured value repeatedly (col. 4 lines 2-4 col. 4 lines 30-35).
With respect to applicants urging of a different field. Moore is relied upon to teach it is well known, routine and conventional to provide a pump. Moore is relied upon to teach it is well known, routine and conventional to provide memory relative the recording as taught by Bayne.
Thus in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually it is noted one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986), and thus while Moore does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Moore is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 20170042178, 8091575, 4228815 directed to additive control in beverage systems.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN N LEFF whose telephone number is (571)272-6527. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571)270-34753475. 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.
/STEVEN N LEFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
