Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 16/774,919

Methods and Devices for the Capture and Retention of Grain Aroma in a Spirit Distillate or a Rejoined Spirit Distillate

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 28, 2020
Examiner
DUBOIS, PHILIP A
Art Unit
1791
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
4 (Non-Final)
25%
Grant Probability
At Risk
4-5
OA Rounds
5y 5m
To Grant
50%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 25% of cases
25%
Career Allow Rate
126 granted / 513 resolved
-40.4% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
5y 5m
Avg Prosecution
82 currently pending
Career history
595
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.0%
-38.0% vs TC avg
§103
59.4%
+19.4% vs TC avg
§102
10.9%
-29.1% vs TC avg
§112
23.3%
-16.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 513 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Status of Application This Official Action is Non-Final. Claims 31-33, 36, 38 are pending. Claims 36, 38 are free of prior art. Claim Objections Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 31 recites the term “gram”. It is believed that the term should be -- grain --. Appropriate correction is required. 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 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al, Volatile Compounds of Raw Spirits from Different Distilling Stages of Luzhou-flavor spirit, 2014 Volume 20 Issue 2 Pages 283-293 (ZHENG) in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0066217 (McCann). . Fig. 1 of ZHENG shows that: PNG media_image1.png 496 612 media_image1.png Greyscale ZHENG teaches that unfermented grain in the form of “fresh grains” can be added with fermented grains (see Fig. 1 B) and placed in a vessel. In the Extraction of Volatile Compounds, it is noted that the extraction is a liquid extraction. Thus, it would have been obvious to place liquid in the vessel ( see Fig 1b). The extraction naturally contains volatiles from the fermentation AND from the fresh grains. It is also taught that steam is used to heat the liquid which naturally extracts and drives the extracted volatile compounds into a vapor phase (see Fig. 1 with steam (a) being added to the vessel). The volatiles are captured and condensed in the tube type exchanger (see Fig. 1 B). Fig. 1 B shows that the volatiles (which include volatiles from the fresh grains) are aged and blended. Thus it would have bene obvious to blend/mix the volatiles from the fresh grain with other alcoholic mixtures. Liquors are blended to create a balanced product with a desired flavor profile. Fig. 1 of ZHENG shows that: PNG media_image1.png 496 612 media_image1.png Greyscale ZHENG teaches that unfermented grain in the form of “fresh grains” can be added with fermented grains (see Fig. 1 B) and placed in a vessel. In the Extraction of Volatile Compounds, it is noted that the extraction is a liquid extraction. Thus, it would have been obvious to place liquid in the vessel ( see Fig 1b). The extraction naturally contains volatiles from the fermentation AND from the fresh grains. It is also taught that steam is used to heat the liquid which naturally extract and drive the extracted volatile compounds into a vapor phase (see Fig. 1 with steam (a) being added to the vessel). The volatiles are captured and condensed in the tube type exchanger (see Fig. 1 B). Fig. 1 B shows that the volatiles (which include volatiles from the fresh grains) are aged and blended. Thus it would have bene obvious to blend/mix the volatiles from the fresh grain with other alcoholic mixtures. Liquors are blended to create a balanced product with a desired flavor profile. ZHENG does not teach the addition of a separate structure for the unfermented grain. McCann teaches botanical baskets constructed of stainless piping and are oriented vertically with a capacity of 5 gallons (see [0018, FIGS 1-3). As a non-limited example, the botanicals contemplated for use in the flavor vessels 3, 4, include grains (i.e., with no indication of being fermented). In [0019], it is taught that each flavor vessel 3, 4 houses one or more perforated stainless sheets (trays) that contain the botanicals and allow for vapor to pass through the botanicals to extract flavor. It would have been obvious to provide unfermented grain in a separate container that is attached to the device of ZHENG to provide good flavor and aroma. Claims 32-33 In the Extraction of Volatile Compounds, it is noted that the extraction is a liquid-liquid extraction where water is added ( ZHENG, see Fig 1b). The water can be mixed with a raw spirit. Thus, it would have been obvious to have selected water or an alcohol-water solution as the extraction liquid. Claims Free of Prior Art Claims 36, 38 are free of prior art. Claims 36, 38 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Vapor infusion techniques are known where vapors are passed over botanicals held in a botanical basket to obtain botanical volatiles (see Hodel, Influence of distillation parameters on the extraction of Juniperus communis L. in vapour infused gin, J. Inst. Brew. 2020; 126: 184–193). However, these vapor infusion techniques are not known for adding unfermented grains and using separate and attached reflux and distillation columns, as claimed. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 1/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argued that neither ZHENG nor Fujimaki teach the claimed method. While ZHENG is still cited, Fujimaki is no longer relied upon. McCann is cited to teach this feature. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP A DUBOIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30-6:00p. 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, Nikki Dees can be reached on 571-270-3435. 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. /PHILIP A DUBOIS/ Examiner, Art Unit 1791 /Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 28, 2020
Application Filed
Jul 22, 2021
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 10, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 19, 2022
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 22, 2022
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 24, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 22, 2023
Response Filed
Oct 29, 2023
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 19, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 19, 2024
Notice of Allowance
Mar 22, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 03, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 03, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 16, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 18, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 18, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 29, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 11, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jun 14, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 11, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 11, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 05, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600930
Process for Aging Distilled Spirits
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12543755
COMPOSITION COMPRISING AN OIL PHASE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12501919
A METHOD FOR INCREASING ANTHOCYANIN CONTENT IN CARROTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Patent 12490752
METHODS AND SYSTEMS OF MAKING CHEESE FORMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent 12426608
COMPOSITION COMPRISING AN OIL PHASE
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 30, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
25%
Grant Probability
50%
With Interview (+25.7%)
5y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 513 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month