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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but prior to a decision on the appeal. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 05/26/2026 has been entered
Response to Amendment
Claims 41-47 are canceled. Claims 28-40 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, 32-36, and 38-40 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 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), 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 34, Kumar discloses the signaling including gas pressure input signals received from a gas pressure sensing device (figure 9, sensor 705) configured to sense the gas pressure of the incoming gas provided from a pressurized gas tank (at source 50, paragraph 0033 indicates the carbon dioxide is provided at higher pressure) to the inline gas liquid absorption device, and provide gas pressure input signals containing information about the gas pressure of the incoming gas provided from the pressurized gas tank to the inline gas liquid absorption device (paragraph 0044, “pressure of the carbon dioxide at the inline carbonator 10 is sensed continuously and is fed back into the electronic control system 710”). Gilmour also teaches an inline gas/liquid infusion system (figure 1) including signaling containing information about the gas pressure of an incoming gas from a gas pressure sensing device (pressure sensor P2) configured to sense gas 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 35, Kumar discloses the pressurized gas tank being configured to provide carbon dioxide (at source 50, paragraph 0033 indicates the carbon dioxide is provided at higher pressure).
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 38, Kumar discloses the pump control signaling controlling the pump so as to provide adjusted flow and pressure conditions of the incoming liquid provided to the inline gas liquid absorption device (figure 9, the pump, and thus the pressure of the incoming liquid, are controlled by the control system 710 via the air-controlled valve 715).
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.
Claims 31 and 37 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), as applied to claims 28, 40, and 42 above, and further in view of Hancock et al (US 4850269, hereinafter Hancock).
Regarding claim 31, Kumar is silent to a motor driven pump. Hancock teaches a gas/liquid infusion system (figure 1) that includes a liquid pump that is a motor driven pump (column 1, lines 25-27). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have substituted the motor driven pump of Hancock for the pump of Kumar because the simple substitution of one known pump for another would have provided only the expected result of pressurizing and moving the liquid into the infusion system. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), supra.
Regarding claim 37, Kumar is silent to the types of pumps as recited. Hancock teaches a gas/liquid infusion system (figure 1) that includes a liquid pump that is a rotary vane pump (column 1, lines 25-27). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have substituted the motor driven pump of Hancock for the pump of Kumar because the simple substitution of one known pump for another would have provided only the expected result of pressurizing and moving the liquid into the infusion system. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the prior art references do not recognize the “carbon adjustment” problem set forth in the Applicant’s disclosure (remarks, page 12). The phrase “carbon adjustment” is presented in quotation marks in the Applicant’s remarks, but it is not clear where this phrase originates. The phrase “carbon adjustment” does not appear in the instant Specification as originally filed, nor does it appear in the associated US pre-grant publication (US PGPub 2018/0085723). It is not clear what the Applicant means by the “carbon adjustment problem” as presented in their remarks. The prior art, specifically the Kumar reference, 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). It is not clear how this adjustment in the prior art for the purpose of maintaining a desired level of carbonation would not be considered the so-called carbon adjustment problem cited in the Applicant’s remarks. The Applicant has not provided any specific information as to how the carbon adjustment problem is different from the adjustments taking place in the prior art and the problem they are seeking to solve. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
It is noted that the Applicant cites figure 6 of Kumar in their remarks. This is not the embodiment of Kumar that is cited by the Examiner in the above rejections. Instead, the Examiner cites figure 9 of Kumar.
The Applicant argues that the references do not teach varying characteristics of a voltage signal to a pump based upon a differential pressure between the liquid and gas pressure signaling received (remarks, pages 15 and 16). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the above rejection, varying the characteristics of a voltage signal is a known method of controlling a pump. Additionally, 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). Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights