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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Currently, no claim limitation is being interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE2358591 to Karr (Karr) in view of US Patent 6,192,946 to Clusserath (Clusserath). Karr was cited on an IDS and a copy thereof (including English translation) was filed with the application. Therefor, a copy has not been included with this Office Action.
Regarding claim 1, Karr discloses a method for filling (abstract) a liquid into a container (49), wherein the method comprises: carbonating the liquid using a carbonator (14); continuously reducing a pressure of the carbonated liquid to below a saturation pressure of carbon dioxide in the carbonated liquid and to at least an ambient pressure (in pressure reducing vessel 27, the pressure is continuously reduced below the saturation [carbonation] pressure and to at least ambient pressure; see [0081]); and filling the container with the pressure-reduced liquid using a filling device (47). Karr does not disclose the pressure reduction and filling of the container are performed using a filling valve. Clusserath teaches a filling valve (13) which includes throttles (26, 28) for reducing the pressure of the liquid flowing through the valve to control the flow rate and reduce foaming of the liquid (col. 8, lines 10-23 and col. 10, line 66 – col. 11, line 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a filling valve as taught by Clusserath for reducing the pressure and controlling the flow rate to prevent foaming in the system of Karr. The filling valve of Clusserath allows the system operate using unpressurized bottling or counter-pressure bottling, both of which are described as alternatives by Karr.
Regarding claim 3, Karr discloses at least one of: the filling of the container is carried out through a filling tube 34) which is immersed into the container; the filling of the container is carried out by wall-filling of the container, in which the liquid flows into the container along an inner circumferential face of the container as the container is filled; and the filling of the container is not carried out by free-jet filling (the filling is not free-jet filling).
Regarding claim 4, Karr discloses at least one of: when the container is filled with the pressure-reduced liquid, the container has an internal pressure which corresponds to the pressure of at least one of the pressure-reduced liquid and the ambient pressure, and the filling is carried out at ambient pressure ([0081]).
Regarding claim 5, Karr discloses at least one of: the container is pressed against the filling valve during filling (via platform 50 and centering bell 51), and the filling valve is one of several filling valves of a rotary filling apparatus.
Regarding claim 6, Karr discloses the container is pressed against the filling valve during the filling in one of a gas-tight and a liquid-tight manner (in order for gas to flow out the vent tube, the container must be pressed in a gas-tight manner).
Regarding claim 7, Karr discloses flowing of the carbonated liquid through a piping system (48) to the filling valve, wherein at least one of the following conditions is met: the internal surface of the piping system has a mean roughness value Ra 0.8; - the piping system is free of at least one of dead zones, sudden expansions of a flow cross-section and sudden contractions of a flow cross-section (see Fig. 1; no such section exist); and- a maximum angle for continuous expansions of a flow cross-section and continuous contractions of a flow cross-section of the piping system is 60.
Regarding claim 8, Karr discloses storing the carbonated liquid in a liquid reservoir (12) before the pressure is reduced by the filling valve.
Regarding claim 9, Karr discloses one of: flowing of the carbonated liquid through a piping system (pipes 39 and 48) to the filling valve with an interposition of a liquid reservoir (27); and storing the carbonated liquid in a liquid reservoir before the pressure is reduced by the filling valve, wherein the carbonated liquid is stored under a pressure which corresponds at least to the saturation pressure of carbon dioxide in the carbonated liquid.
Regarding claim 11, Karr discloses the liquid being carbonated is one of pure water and water mixed with at least one additional filling material (the liquid is a combination of water and syrup [0065] and [0072]).
Regarding claim 12, Karr discloses metering at least one additional filling material into the liquid (syrup; see [0072]).
Regarding claim 13, Karr discloses the metering is one of: - before the carbonating (the syrup is metered into the water before carbonating, [0072]); - after the carbonating and before reducing the pressure; and -into a mixing chamber of the filling valve.
Regarding claim 14, Karr discloses the method of claim 1, but does not disclose at least one of the following conditions is met: the method further comprises sealing the filled container with a container closure using a closure apparatus; the container is at least one of automatically moved to the filling and automatically moved away after the filling; the method is applied in a container treatment system; the filling valve is one of several filling valves of a filling apparatus; and the container moves along a continuous production line. However, the closing of bottles using a closure apparatus is well known in the art and standard in the industry such that the bottles can be transported and sold without spilling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further included a closure apparatus for capping the bottles in the system and method of Karr to prevent the product from spilling.
Regarding claim 15, Karr discloses a system (see figures) for filling a liquid into containers (49), the system comprising: a carbonator (14) configured to carbonate the liquid; and a filling apparatus (47) connected to the carbonator in order to receive the carbonated liquid from the carbonator (the carbonator is connected to the filler via the pipes and tanks) and configured to: continuously reduce the pressure of the carbonated liquid to below the saturation pressure and to at least an ambient pressure (in pressure reducing vessel 27, the pressure is continuously reduced below the saturation [carbonation] pressure and to at least ambient pressure; see [0081]), and fill a container with the pressure-reduced liquid (via filler 47). Karr does not disclose the pressure reduction and filling of the container are performed using a filling valve of the filling apparatus. Clusserath teaches a filling valve (13) which includes throttles (26, 28) for reducing the pressure of the liquid flowing through the valve to control the flow rate and reduce foaming of the liquid (col. 8, lines 10-23 and col. 10, line 66 – col. 11, line 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a filling valve as taught by Clusserath for reducing the pressure and controlling the flow rate to prevent foaming in the system of Karr. The filling valve of Clusserath allows the system operate using unpressurized bottling or counter-pressure bottling, both of which are described as alternatives by Karr.
Regarding claim 16, Karr discloses at least one of the following: a liquid reservoir (12) for storing the carbonated liquid, wherein the liquid reservoir is connected to the carbonator in order to receive the carbonated liquid, and to the filling valve in order to supply the carbonated liquid to the filling valve (connected via the piping system); a closure apparatus for sealing filled containers with a container closure; at least one additional filling material source which is connected to one of:- a pipeline portion one of upstream and downstream of the carbonator for metering an additional filling material into the liquid in the pipeline portion; and- a mixing chamber of the filling valve for metering an additional filling material into the liquid in the mixing chamber; a liquid supply connected to the carbonator in order to supply liquid to the carbonator; a degasser configured to reduce gaseous oxygen in the liquid and one of integrated with the carbonator and connected to the carbonator in order to supply the degassed liquid to the carbonator; a lifting device configured to raise and lower at least one of the container and the filling valve in order to press the filling valve and the container together; a piping system connecting the carbonator and the filling valve, wherein the piping system at least one of:- has an internal surface with a mean roughness value Ra 0.8;- is at least one of free from dead zones, sudden expansions of a flow cross-section and sudden contractions of a flow cross-section; and- has a maximum angle for continuous expansions of a flow cross-section and continuous contractions of a flow cross-section of 60.
Regarding claim 17, Karr discloses the liquid supply includes a water supply ([0065] and [0072]).
Regarding claim 19, Karr discloses one of: the system is an industrial container treatment system (the system of Karr meets all of the structure of the phrase “industrial container treatment system); and the system is a small-scale system for installation in one of a supermarket and a railway station, with a footprint 10 sqm.
Regarding claim 20, Karr as modified by Clusserath discloses at least one of: the filling apparatus is configured to continuously reduce the pressure of the carbonated liquid to below the saturation pressure and to at least the ambient pressure using a throttle element of the filling valve (as modified to use the filling valve having throttle elements of Clusserath); the filling apparatus is configured to fill the container with the pressure-reduced liquid one of through a filling tube (the fill tube having the filling valve) and by wall-filling the container; the system is a small-scale system for installation in one of a supermarket and a railway station with a footprint 10 sqm; and the system fills the liquid into the containers using a method of: carbonating the liquid using the carbonator, continuously reducing the pressure of the carbonated liquid to below the saturation pressure of carbon dioxide in the carbonated liquid and to at least the ambient pressure using a filling valve, and filling the container with the pressure-reduced liquid using the filling valve (the steps of claim 1; see above).
Claims 2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karr as modified by Clusserath as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of US Patent 5,565,149 to Page et al. (Page).
Regarding claims 2 and 18, Karr as modified by Clusserath discloses the method and systems of claims 1 and 15 (see above), but does not disclose at least one of the following conditions is met: the carbonating of the liquid is carried out using one of a membrane contactor carbonator, a cavitation carbonator, and a spray cone carbonator; the carbonating is carried out using a bubble-free carbonation process; during the carbonating, one of the liquid is vaporized into a gas and the gas is mixed with gaseous carbon dioxide, and gaseous carbon dioxide diffuses into the liquid during the carbonating without being forced into it; and a pressure of the liquid during the carbonating corresponds at least to the saturation pressure of carbon dioxide in the liquid. Page discloses a system and method for dissolving gases in liquids including the use of a membrane contactor carbonator (col. 16, lines 17-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a membrane contactor carbonator as taught by Page in place of the carbonator of Karr. Such a change requires only the substitution of one known element for another known element for performing the same function. Further, as disclosed by Page, a membrane contactor carbonator can be used at reduced water pressure, potentially eliminating the need for a water pump.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karr as modified by Clusserath as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2012/0174796 to Ehrlinger (Ehrlinger).
Regarding claim 10, Karr discloses the method according to claim 1, but does not disclose degassing the liquid using a degasser one of before and during the carbonating of the liquid to reduce gaseous oxygen in the liquid. Ehrlinger teaches a system and method for producing a carbonated beverage including degassing the liquid using a degasser one of before and during the carbonating of the liquid to reduce gaseous oxygen in the liquid (see [0018]-[0019] and [0029]-[0030]) to improve the carbonation of the liquid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included degassing the liquid as taught by Ehrlinger in the method of Karr to improve the carbonation of the liquid.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLAS A ARNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-5062. The examiner can normally be reached M- F, 8AM - 3PM.
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.
/NICOLAS A ARNETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753 May 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights