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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/01/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on 06/18/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 29, 31, 34, 35, 37, and 38 are canceled. Claims 28, 30, 32, 33, 36, and 39-40 are pending.
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, 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 28, 30, 32, 33, 36, and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US PGPub 2013/0108760, hereinafter Kumar) in view of Gilmour et al. (US PGPub 2011/0168640, hereinafter Gilmour) and Koslow et al. (US PGPub 2012/0098148, hereinafter Koslow), and optionally in view of Shikami et al. (US PGPub 2003/0031086, hereinafter Shikami).
Regarding claim 28, Kumar discloses an inline gas/liquid infusion system (figure 9) comprising:
an inline gas liquid absorption device (figure 9, apparatus 10), and
a pump (pump 720) for providing incoming liquid to the inline gas liquid absorption device,
a gas pressure sensing device (sensor 705) configured to sense a gas pressure of an incoming gas provided to the inline gas liquid absorption device and provide gas pressure signaling containing information about the gas pressure sensed (figure 9, see connection between sensor 705 and system 710), and
an electronic control logic subsystem (figure 9, system 710) having a signal processor configured to:
receive the gas pressure signaling from the gas pressure sensing device (figure 9, see connection between sensor 705 and system 710);
determine pump control signaling containing information to control the liquid pressure of the incoming liquid (via valve 715 and pump 720) provided from the pump to the inline gas liquid absorption device based upon the signaling received (paragraph 0044); and
control the pump (via valve 715) based on the pump control signaling determined in order to provide real time adjustable set point output levels of gas absorption in the inline gas liquid absorption device (paragraph 0044).
Kumar discloses the control signal being provided to the pump to adjust the liquid pressure (via valve 715 and pump 720), including by varying characteristics of a voltage signal output to the pump (paragraph 0044). The electronic controller clearly performs the function of altering a voltage signal which changes the water pressure via the air control valve and the pump. Even if it is decided that Kumar does not teach altering the voltage to the pump for control of the pump, altering voltage to a pump to control its pumping rate is well-known in the art (Shikami: paragraphs 0029 and 0035). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have used the well-known technique of controlling a pump using voltage signaling in the device of Kumar because the use of the known technique would have provided only the predictable result of adjusting the pump as desired.
Kumar discloses the signaling containing information about the gas pressure sensed (figure 9, by sensor 705); and the signal processor is configured to determine the real time adjustable set point output levels of the gas absorption by monitoring the signaling received and adjusting the liquid pressure of the incoming liquid provided from the pump to the inline gas liquid absorption device (via valve 715 and pump 720). Kumar also discloses the importance of maintaining a constant pressure differential between the gas and liquid pressure (paragraphs 0041 and 0044). Gilmour teaches an inline gas/liquid infusion system (figure 1) including a control system (controller 110) configured to receive signals containing information about the liquid pressure of an incoming liquid (from pressure sensor P1) and information about the gas pressure of an incoming gas (from pressure sensor P2). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Kumar with signals associated with both gas and liquid pressure because including both would allow for more accurate control of the device using the additional data, as evidenced by Gilmour. It would also have been obvious to take into account the pressure differential because Kumar states that maintaining a constant pressure differential is important (paragraph 0041).
Kumar is silent to a liquid pressure sensing device and receiving a signal containing information about the pressure of an incoming liquid. Gilmour teaches an inline gas/liquid infusion system (figure 1) including a liquid pressure sensor (sensor P1) control system (controller 110) configured to receive signals containing information about the liquid pressure of an incoming liquid (from pressure sensor P1) and information about the gas pressure of an incoming gas (from pressure sensor P2). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Kumar with signals associated with both gas and liquid pressure because including both would allow for more accurate control of the device using the additional data, as evidenced by Gilmour.
Although Kumar and Gilmour do teach control based on multiple pressure variables, they do not specifically teach controlling a liquid pump based on data from a liquid pressure sensor. Koslow teaches the control of a liquid pump based specifically on the measured pressure of liquid coming into a mixing system (paragraph 0143, “a pressure sensor configured to monitor pressure from the water supply and activate the pump accordingly”). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided feedback control to the pump based on the water pressure for the purpose of providing more accurate control of the pump using additional data. Further, such a combination would use only known methods to yield the predictable result of controlling the properties of the outputted mixture. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
To summarize, the claims recite sensing a gas pressure, sensing a liquid pressure, and controlling a liquid pump based on those sensed values. Kumar discloses sensing a gas pressure and controlling a liquid pump based on the sensed value. Gilmour discloses sensing both a gas pressure and a liquid pressure. Koslow discloses sensing a liquid pressure and controlling a liquid pump based on the measured pressure. Thus, the combination of these three references, with the additional teaching of Kumar relating to the importance of maintaining a consistent pressure differential between gas and liquid, teaches all the elements of claim 28 and is considered to be obvious for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 30, Kumar discloses the pump (figure 9, pump 720) being configured to receive the pump control signaling provided as output signaling from the signal processor (see connection between system 710 and pump 720 via valve 715), and also receive the incoming liquid; and pump the incoming liquid (water source 30), based upon the pump control signaling received (paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 32, Kumar discloses the inline gas liquid absorption device (figure 9) configured to: receive the gas pressure of the incoming gas (via sensor 705) provided from a pressurized gas tank (at source 50, paragraph 0033 indicates the carbon dioxide is provided at higher pressure), and provide a gas infused liquid, including providing the gas infused liquid to a dispenser system or valve (paragraph 0002, “forming a carbonated beverage”). Gilmour teaches an inline gas/liquid infusion system (figure 1) including a control system (controller 110) configured to receive signals containing information about the liquid pressure of an incoming liquid (from pressure sensor P1) and information about the gas pressure of an incoming gas (from pressure sensor P2). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Kumar with signals associated with both gas and liquid pressure because including both would allow for more accurate control of the device using the additional data, as evidenced by Gilmour.
Regarding claim 33, Gilmour teaches an inline gas/liquid infusion system (figure 1) including signaling containing information about the liquid pressure of an incoming liquid from a liquid pressure sensing device (pressure sensor P1) configured to sense liquid pressure and provide signals containing that information (see connections to controller 110 in figure 1). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Kumar with signals associated with both gas and liquid pressure because including both would allow for more accurate control of the device using the additional data, as evidenced by Gilmour.
Regarding claim 36, Kumar discloses the device including or taking the form of a mixing valve, a carbonator, a nitrogenator, or an infuser (paragraph 0029, “an inline carbonation apparatus 10”).
Regarding claim 39, Gilmour teaches an inline gas/liquid infusion system (figure 1) including a control system (controller 110) configured to receive signals containing information about the liquid pressure of an incoming liquid (from pressure sensor P1) and information about the gas pressure of an incoming gas (from pressure sensor P2). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Kumar with signals associated with both gas and liquid pressure because including both would allow for more accurate control of the device using the additional data, as evidenced by Gilmour.
Regarding claim 40, Kumar discloses a method comprising
receiving, with a signal processor (figure 9, control system 710), gas pressure signaling containing information about a gas pressure of an incoming gas (carbon dioxide supply 50) provided to the inline gas liquid absorption device (from pressure sensor 705) that provides a gas infused liquid (title, “A Carbonated Beverage”); and
determining, with the signal processor (control system 710), pump control signaling containing information to control the liquid pressure of the incoming liquid (via valve 715 and pump 720) provided from the pump to the inline gas liquid absorption device in order to provide real time adjustable set point output levels of gas absorption in the gas infused liquid provided from the inline gas liquid absorption device, based upon the signaling received (paragraph 0044).
Kumar discloses providing the control to the pump to adjust the liquid pressure of the incoming liquid (via valve 715 and pump 720), including by varying characteristics of a voltage signal output to the pump (paragraph 0044). The electronic controller clearly performs the function of altering a voltage signal which changes the water pressure via the air control valve and the pump.
Kumar discloses the control signal being provided to the pump to adjust the liquid pressure (via valve 715 and pump 720), including by varying characteristics of a voltage signal output to the pump (paragraph 0044). The electronic controller clearly performs the function of altering a voltage signal which changes the water pressure via the air control valve and the pump. Even if it is decided that Kumar does not teach altering the voltage to the pump for control of the pump, altering voltage to a pump to control its pumping rate is well-known in the art (Shikami: paragraphs 0029 and 0035). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have used the well-known technique of controlling a pump using voltage signaling in the device of Kumar because the use of the known technique would have provided only the predictable result of adjusting the pump as desired.
Kumar discloses the signaling containing information about the gas pressure sensed (figure 9, by sensor 705); and the signal processor is configured to determine the real time adjustable set point output levels of the gas absorption by monitoring the signaling received and adjusting the liquid pressure of the incoming liquid provided from the pump to the inline gas liquid absorption device (via valve 715 and pump 720). Gilmour teaches an inline gas/liquid infusion system (figure 1) including a control system (controller 110) configured to receive signals containing information about the liquid pressure of an incoming liquid (from pressure sensor P1) and information about the gas pressure of an incoming gas (from pressure sensor P2). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Kumar with signals associated with both gas and liquid pressure because including both would allow for more accurate control of the device using the additional data, as evidenced by Gilmour.
Kumar is silent to receiving a signal containing information about the pressure of an incoming liquid. Gilmour teaches an inline gas/liquid infusion system (figure 1) including a control system (controller 110) configured to receive signals containing information about the liquid pressure of an incoming liquid (from pressure sensor P1) and information about the gas pressure of an incoming gas (from pressure sensor P2). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Kumar with signals associated with both gas and liquid pressure because including both would allow for more accurate control of the device using the additional data, as evidenced by Gilmour.
Although Kumar and Gilmour do teach control based on multiple pressure variables, they do no specifically teach controlling a liquid pump based on data from a liquid pressure sensor. Koslow teaches the control of a liquid pump based specifically on the measured pressure of liquid coming into a mixing system (paragraph 0143, “a pressure sensor configured to monitor pressure from the water supply and activate the pump accordingly”). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided feedback control to the pump based on the water pressure for the purpose of providing more accurate control of the pump using additional data. Further, such a combination would use only known methods to yield the predictable result of controlling the properties of the outputted mixture. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the prior art references do not recognize the “carbonation adjustment” problem set forth in the Applicant’s disclosure (remarks, page 8), which the Applicant alleges is defined in paragraph 0018-0020 of US PGPub 2018/0085723 as available inline devices being unable to (1) adjust the carbonation level of liquid output in real time by varying liquid input pressure and (2) compensate for variation in incoming liquid or gas inlet pressures to maintain target carbonation levels. Kumar explicitly states that the carbon dioxide pressure is dynamically adjusted in a feedback loop to ensure a consistent carbon dioxide to water pressure differential (Kumar: paragraphs 0041-0044, 0053, 0056, 0061). Kumar performs this function by varying liquid inlet flow using pneumatic pump 720 in figure 9. Gilmour teaches an inline gas/liquid infusion system (figure 1) including a control system (controller 110) configured to receive signals containing information about the liquid pressure of an incoming liquid (from pressure sensor P1) and information about the gas pressure of an incoming gas (from pressure sensor P2). Finally, Koslow teaches the control of a liquid pump based specifically on the measured pressure of liquid coming into a mixing system (paragraph 0143, “a pressure sensor configured to monitor pressure from the water supply and activate the pump accordingly”). It is not clear how the sensing and adjustment in the prior art for the purpose of maintaining a desired level of carbonation would not be considered the so-called carbonation adjustment problem cited in the Applicant’s remarks. The Applicant has not provided any specific information as to how the carbonation adjustment problem is different from the sensing and adjustments taking place in the prior art and the problem these sensing and adjustment are seeking to solve. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Kumar does not disclose a control system receiving any information relating to water pressure, providing control signaling to a pump to maintain a consistent carbon dioxide to water pressure differential, or varying characteristics of a voltage signal to the pump (remarks, page 10). The Examiner agrees, however, it is noted that Kumar is not cited to teach any of these limitations. The cited references, taken in combination, render obvious receiving liquid (Gilmour, Koslow) and gas (Kumar, Gilmour) pressure signaling and adjusting a pump (Kumar, Shikami) to maintain a desire pressure differential therebetween (Kumar). As previously stated, the Kumar references is relied upon to disclose only some of the limitations of the claims, while other references are relied upon to overcome the deficiencies of Kumar and render the claims, as a whole, obvious. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant makes similar arguments related to the other references cited, indicating that they do not teach claim limitations for which they are not cited. The Applicant has not argued against any of the Examiner’s statements about what the references above do teach, but has merely argued that the references do not teach limitations for which they are not cited. As previously stated, the claims recite sensing a gas pressure, sensing a liquid pressure, and controlling a liquid pump based on those sensed values. Kumar discloses sensing a gas pressure and controlling a liquid pump based on the sensed value. Gilmour discloses sensing both a gas pressure and a liquid pressure. Koslow discloses sensing a liquid pressure and controlling a liquid pump based on the measured pressure. Thus, the combination of these three references, with the additional teaching of Kumar relating to the importance of maintaining a consistent pressure differential between gas and liquid, teaches all the elements of claim 28 and is considered to be obvious for the reasons set forth above. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
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 MARC C HOWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-9834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Claire Wang can be reached on 571-270-1051. 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.
/MARC C HOWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
