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 .
Claims Status:
Claims 1-5, 7 and 9-21 are pending.
Claims 6, 8 and 22 are cancelled.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-10 and 21 are examined as follow:
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 5th 2026 have been fully considered:
Regarding to the argument of “…The combination of CN8981 and DAVID thus does not teach or suggest "a wooden bottle neck and ... a wooden top cap oppositely facing the bottom cap and comprising a shoulder defining an inward transition from the bottle body to the bottle neck, and defining a top flat end of the barrel body." Amended claim 1, therefore, is patentably distinct from the combination of CN8981 and DAVID …” in Remark page 7.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is expressed that CN8981 in view of DAVID discloses all the limitation argued (refer to the 103 rejection below), therefore the argument does not overcome the prior arts of record.
Regarding to the argument of “…The Office cites to CN8981 to conclude that the claimed relationship between the top cap and bottom cap features is disclosed. CN8981, however, does not teach or suggest "a wooden top cap oppositely facing the bottom cap ... and defining a top flat end of the barrel body... wherein the bottom cap and top cap are matched in size, "as recited by amended claim 1 …” in Remark page 8.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is expressed that CN8981 in view of DAVID discloses all the limitation argued (refer to the 103 rejection below), and further explained here, since there is no other structural limitation in the rejected claim to restrict the interpretation of the term “size”, then such term can be reasonably interpretated as diameter, length, height etc, therefore, DAVID flange has the same diameter size of the bottom cap shown in DAVID’s figure, also since present application top cap is physical structurally including the bottle neck and spout, any other different interpretation would likely raise 112a, b and/or drawing objection issue.
Furthermore, it is noted that 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). In this case, the CN8981 reference is not relied upon to reject “wherein the bottom cap and top cap are matched in size”, It is DAVID that teaches such limitation. Additionally, the references are related as the same technical field as bottle for liquor or spirit, therefore it would have been obvious to combine them too.
Regarding to the argument of “…CN8981 does not disclose or suggest a top flat end within the meaning of claim 1 …” in Remark page 8 and “…these features are only visible in a cross-section because they are mere construction elements that contribute to the conical, tapered, and matched appearance of the CN8981. Claim 1, by contrast requires "the bottom and top flat ends provide the barrel shape to the bottle body”…” in Remark Page 9.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitation from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (refer to MPEP 2145. VI). In this case, there is not limitation restricting what the “top flat end of the barrel body” is or is not, as long as the prior art CN8981 show there is a flat area and is on top of the barrel body, then teaches such cited limitation.
Regarding to the argument of “…Applicant previously provided definitions of a barrel shape in prior responses, including the requirement of opposing flat surfaces, which the Office has not refuted…” and “…CN8981 does not have the opposing flat ends that are characteristic of a barrel shape. The absence of opposing flat ends in CN8981 further confirms that CN8981 does not disclose a barrel-shaped bottle body as required by claim 1…” in Remark Page 9 and 10,
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that such argument had been refuted multiple times throughout the prosecution, barrel shaped is always well known as barrel like not a specific dimensional ratio, arguing how the interpretation is incorrect will not be persuasive, because the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitation from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (refer to MPEP 2145. VI).
In fact, the amendment of “top cap and bottom cap are matching in size” is the only substantial amendment/argument that would restricting the interpretation of “barrel shaped”. Further argument on what is “barrel shaped”, would not be productive nor assist in compact prosecution at all.
Regarding the argument of “…The Office has not clearly articulated what portions of CN8981 allegedly correspond to the "top cap" and what portions allegedly correspond to the "bottle neck," as recited by claim 1 of the present application…” in Remark page 11.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that the annotation of CN8981 fig. 1 and 2 in office action mailed on February 5th 2026 and the rejection below is stated clearly, since there is no cited limitation that prevent the interpretation of the “bottle neck” and the “top cap” cannot be one piece, any portion of the wood bottle cork #2 shown in figure can be “bottle neck”, therefore, the argument is unpersuasive.
It is advised that be aware of what you are arguing, you may be arguing against your own drawing or disclosure.
Regarding the argument of “…DAVID teaches that "In place of the usual wooden head of the barrel, I use a metal top, D, of a form substantially as shown in the drawing, this top being, by preference, of cast iron, galvanized, and having the neck h." (See DAVID, paragraph [0004]). DAVID also explains that the demijohn disclosed "is comparatively light and is capable of withstanding the rough usage to which such vessels are subject during transportation." (See DAVID at paragraph [0007]). Indeed, the primary objective is containing and transporting malt-liquors. See DAVID, paragraph [0002]. While the metal top and neck taught by DAVID can tolerate "rough usage" and "transporting malt- liquors," metal is non-porous and does not interact with the contents to cause a brewing or aging effect. DAVID is silent with regard to aging or brewing…” in Remark page 11.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that aging or brewing are intended use, furthermore if DAVID’s bottle capable to holding spirit or liquor for the time of transport, then surely it is capable to holding the spirit or liquor for at less the same amount of time of brewing and aging. Furthermore, there is not cited limitation in the rejected claim to specifically defining how longer time would be brewing or aging.
Regarding argument of improper combination “…Substituting any portion of CN8981 with DAVID's cast iron, galvanized metal top and neck would fundamentally undermine CN8981's principle of operation and render the bottle unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of brewing/aging the contents. A nonporous metal top and neck would not interact with the stored beverage in the same manner as porous wood. Specifically, any contents in contact with the nonporous metal top and neck would not interact with these components no continuous brewing and aging would occur in these regions. The proposed modification would thus alter the principle of operation of the bottle in the region of the metal cap and neck, thereby rendering the bottle of CN8981 unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of continuous brewing/aging of contents in said region…” in Remark page 12 and “…DAVID expressly teaches away from equipping a bottle with a wooden cap and neck. As explained above, DAVID teaches that "In place of the usual wooden head of the barrel, I use a metal top, D, of a form substantially as shown in the drawing, this top being, by preference, of cast iron, galvanized, and having the neck h." (See DAVID, paragraph [0004]). DAVID also explains that the demijohn disclosed "is comparatively light and is capable of withstanding the rough usage to which such vessels are subject during transportation." (See DAVID at paragraph [0007]). To make a light and rugged demijohn, DAVID specifically teaches using metal for the top and neck features of the demijohn instead of wood. By contrast, CN8981 teaches a conical/tapered bottle where substantially all interior surfaces of the bottle that are in contact with the contents are made of wood. (See CN8981, abstract, paragraph [0001] of disclosure, and FIG. 1). Modifying the metal cap and neck taught by DAVID to be wooden would directly contravene an express teaching of reference. This is improper, and one or ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application would not have been motivated to make such a modification. An assertion to the contrary by the Office can only be gleaned by Applicant's own specification, which necessarily implicates impermissible hindsight. Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is patently distinct from the combination of CN8981 and DAVID for this additional reason…” in Remark Page 13.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is expressed that the modification is the merely a shape modification, such modification would not have destroy CN8981’s invention or against CN8981’s teaching at all. Not to mention, DAVID too have a wooden bottle body, Such that the modification is proper and obvious.
Regarding the argument of “…The Office has not identified any objective reason, found in either CN8981 or DAVID, that would have motivated one of ordinary skill to combine these references to arrive at the claimed invention…” in Remark Page 14.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that motivation for modification can be different reason than what cited by the prior art of record, as long as the reason is obvious for a person skilled in the art would reasonably concluded, the reason would be objective reasoning too, such as the reason cited in the obviousness statement in the rejection below.
Regarding argument of “…CN8981 teaches away from incorporating a top with such a shape. As explained in prior responses, CN8981 does not disclose or suggest a barrel shape. Instead, CN8981 discloses a "bottle appearance [that] is to taper," (USPTO translation) or an "appearance of the bottle body is conical" (EPO translation). Indeed, CN8981 expressly teaches a conical shape and that this conical shape is important to its invention. CN8981 is silent with respect to a barrel shape. Specifically, the EPO translation states that, "[m]any winemakers have put forward higher requirements on the functionality and style of wine bottles, that is, the novelty of the appearance ... ." (emphasis added). CN8981 further defines the solution to the technical problem as, "The appearance of the bottle body is conical …” in Remark page 14.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that the argument of “barrel shape” is address above, furthermore, there is not further limitation in the rejected claims to restrict the interpretation of a conical shaped barrel is not a claimed barrel shaped bottle, which CN8981 is made of wooden staves just like a barrel, such that it is well within the broadest reasonable interpretation that CN8981 is a barrel shaped bottle too.
Regarding the argument of “…CN8981 therefore teaches away from a shape that would vitiate the conical/tapered appearance of the bottle, such as would be the case if the shape of metal top, D, and neck, h, shown in Figure 1 of DAVID…” in Remark Page 14,
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that the DAVID’s bottle shape is also taper and conical by definition, since the modification is the shape from DAVID, and DAVID’s bottle shape is exactly conical and tapered, such that the modification would be obvious too.
Regarding the argument of examiner modification motivation is improper (summarized) from Page 15. The argument is addressed in one of the responses above.
Regarding the argument of dependent claims 2-5, 9 and 21 in remark Page 16, the argument is mooted, since all argument its relay on is already addressed above.
Regarding the argument of dependent claims 7 and 10 “…Applicant also disagrees, as has been explained in previous responses with respect to the reliance in footnotes 1 and 2 in and related claimed feature. Oxygen is deleterious to the development of wine, and the Office relies on documentation for wine barrels in the wine-making process for the claimed bottle. This is why wine is sold in glass bottles because further exposure will cause the wine to deteriorate or degrade. Therefore, the inherency position that the bottle in CN2728981 is configured to allow air exchange is not supported. CN8981 does not discuss it either. Moreover, as previously identified, some of barrels in the citation in footnotes 1 and 2 (Alamo-Sanza) discuss barrels that do not allow air exchange at the joints. If there are two possible configurations, it does not mean that one of them is inherent to the structure in CN8981, because both are possible. In addition, the Office cannot assume that because the reference uses the terms brewing or aging that it is structured to provide gas exchange at the junction. This is at least because, even as Alamo-Sanza confirms, an exchange through the wood of the wine barrel staves can occur …” in Remark Page 17.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that the whole dispute of “air tight/air exchange” or not had been addressed multiple rounds and even went through an appeal court, the appeal is partially affirmed not because of the “air tight/air exchange” argument, it just merely because my primary prior art used during that appeal does not clearly point out a joint between the staves. One must understand, the appeal court affirmed partially only because the applicant’s joint argument is persuasive, but on the other hand, Examiner’s other argument/rejection are still uphold and standing. In other word, the appeal court agreed with my “air tight/air exchange” assessment. As suggested many times, structural or physical limitation that distinctly related to the “air tight/air exchange” argument would be the best amendment to amend in, and making such amendment would provide a better and stronger ground to argue on this topic.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN2728981Y (previously cited) herein set forth as CN8981, in view of DAVID (US0175178A previously cited) herein set forth as DAVID.
Regarding claim 1, CN8981 discloses a barrel shaped wooden bottle (refer to fig.1 and 2) for storing and aging a hard liquor beverage (refer to the abstract cited: “wine and white spirit”) for long term personal use and aging (refer to the abstract cited: “a steel-wood combined bottle for anti-traditional structure mode, function of the bottle a continuous brewing wine and wine, vintage effect is good, it is not easy to break and has long service life”), comprising:
a bottle body (refer to “bottle body” annotated in fig.1,) comprising a plurality of curved wooden staves (wood bottle work piece #5, fig.1 and 2) arranged to form a barrel shape (refer to “barrel shape” annotated in fig 1 and 2) for the bottle body (refer to “bottle body” annotated in fig.1), and swollen from hot air or gas to prevent leaking (Examiner note: “swollen from hot air or gas” is a product by process, CN8981 wood bottle workpiece #5 also swollen by soaking in water for 24-48 hours refer to attached translation Page 2, Paragraph 10 cited: “…soaking and washing for 24-48 hours…”) and are in contact with the hard liquor (refer to the abstract cited: “wine and white spirit”) inside the wooden bottle (refer to fig.1 and 2),
a bottom cap (cake-shaped wood bottle bottom #4, fig.1) disposed at one end of the bottle body (refer to “bottle body” annotated in fig.1), the bottom cap (cake-shaped wood bottle bottom #4, fig.1) defining a bottom flat end (refer to the flat end that surrounded by #7) of the bottle body (refer to “bottle body” annotated in fig.1); and
a wooden bottle neck (refer to “bottle neck” annotated in fig.1 on wood bottle cork #2, and referring to abstract cited: “…bottle plug is set in the wood and installing cork…”, Examiner note: the citation evidence that the cork #2 is made of wood ) and a spout (refer to “spout” in fig. 1) at one end of the bottle body (refer to “bottle body” annotated in fig.1) and adapted to pour the beverage (refer to the abstract cited: “wine and white spirit”), and
a wooden top cap (wood bottle cork #2, fig.1, and referring to abstract cited: “…bottle plug is set in the wood and installing cork…”, Examiner note: the citation evidence that the cork #2 is made of wood ) oppositely facing the bottom cap (cake-shaped wood bottle bottom #4, fig.1) and comprising a shoulder (refer to “shoulder” annotated in fig.1) defining a transition (refer to “transition” annotated in fig.1) from the bottle body (refer to “bottle body” annotated in fig.1) to the bottle neck (refer to “bottle neck” annotated in fig.1), and defining a top flat end (refer to the flat end of the connection between the annotated “barrel body” and the “wood bottle cork #2 in fig.1) of the barrel body (refer to “bottle body” annotated in fig.1);
wherein the spout (refer to “spout” in fig. 1) is centrally disposed within the bottle neck (refer to “bottle neck” annotated in fig.1 on wood bottle cork #2, and referring to abstract cited: “…bottle cork is set in the wood and installing cork…” ),
wherein the bottle neck (refer to “bottle neck” annotated in fig.1 on wood bottle cork #2, and referring to abstract cited: “…bottle cork is set in the wood and installing cork…” ) is centrally disposed in the top cap (wood bottle cork #2, fig.1),
wherein the bottle neck (refer to “bottle neck” annotated in fig.1 on wood bottle cork #2, and referring to abstract cited: “…bottle cork is set in the wood and installing cork…” ) is narrower than the bottle body (refer to “bottle body” annotated in fig.1),
wherein the bottom (refer to the flat end that surrounded by #7) and top flat ends (refer to the flat end of the connection between the annotated “barrel body” and the “wood bottle cork #2 in fig.1) provide the barrel shape (refer to the shape of the barrel body) to the bottle body (refer to “bottle body” annotated in fig.1), and
wherein the bottle body (refer to “bottle body” annotated in fig.1) is adapted at junctions (refer to “junctions” annotated in fig.1) of adjacent swollen curved wooden staves (wood bottle workpiece #5, fig.1 and 2) is configured to permit an exchange of gas1, through the junction (refer to “junctions” annotated in fig.1), between the hard liquor (refer to the abstract cited: “wine and white spirit”) in the wooden bottle (refer to fig.1 and 2) and the environment outside the wooden bottle (refer to fig.1 and 2) to enhance aging (refer to the abstract as “brewing”) of the hard liquor (refer to the abstract cited: “wine and white spirit”) in the wooden bottle (refer to fig.1 and 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
663
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
819
416
media_image2.png
Greyscale
CN8981 does not explicitly disclose a shoulder defining an inward transition from the bottle body to the bottle neck; wherein the bottom cap and top cap are matched in size.
In the similar field of barrel shaped bottle, DAVID discloses a shoulder (refer to annotated “shoulder” in DAVID fig) defining an inward transition (refer to annotated “inward transition” in DAVID fig) from the bottle body (refer to annotated “bottle body” in DAVID fig) to the bottle neck (refer to annotated “bottle neck” in DAVID fig); wherein the bottom cap (refer as “B” in DAVID figure below) and top cap (refer as “e” in DAVID figure below) are matched in size (Referring to the same size of “B” and “e” in DAVID figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
607
507
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CN8981’s top cap with a shoulder defining an inward transition from the bottle body to the bottle neck; wherein the bottom cap and top cap are matched in size, as taught by DAVID, in order to provide a smooth pouring, easier to hold and better control, such that would increase the marketability and utility of the CN8981’s bottle.
Regarding claim 2, the modification of CN8981 and DAVID discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, CN8981 does not explicitly disclose the wooden bottle has a capacity between about 700 mL and about 2L.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CN8981’ bottle with the capacity between about 700ml and about 2L, for that is well known within one of ordinary skill in the art as the matter of design choice or desired application, refer to In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In order to provide choices of different volume bottle for different needs, market or customer desired.
Regarding claim 3, the modification of CN8981 and DAVID discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, CN8981 further discloses wherein the curved wooden staves (wood bottle workpiece #5, fig.1 and 2) are curved outwardly along the longitudinal axis of the wooden bottle (refer to fig.1 and 2) to form a bilge (refer to “longitudinal bilge” annotated in fig.1) on the bottle body (refer to “bottle body” annotated in fig.1).
Regarding claim 4, the modification of CN8981 and DAVID discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, CN8981 further discloses the curved wooden staves (wood bottle workpiece #5, fig.1 and 2) are curved along a circumference (refer to fig.1 and 2) of the wooden bottle (refer to fig.1 and 2).
Regarding claim 5, the modification of CN8981 and DAVID discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, CN8981 further discloses the curved wooden staves (wood bottle workpiece #5, fig.1 and 2) comprises one pieces of wood to form a curved wooden staves (wood bottle workpiece #5, fig.1 and 2).
Regarding claim 9, the modification of CN8981 and DAVID discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, CN8981 further discloses wherein the wooden bottle (refer to fig.1 and 2) is adapted allow passage of a gas2 through the wood of the curved wooden staves (wood bottle workpiece #5, fig.1 and 2).
Regarding claim 21, the modification of CN8981 and DAVID discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, CN8981 further discloses wherein the curved wooden staves (wood bottle workpiece #5, fig.1 and 2) terminate at the shoulder (refer to “shoulder” annotated in fig.1).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN2728981Y (previously cited) herein set forth as CN8981, in view of DAVID (US0175178A previously cited) herein set forth as DAVID, further in view of Ganti (US2009/0183638A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Ganti.
Regarding claim 7, the modification of CN8981 and DAVID discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, CN8981 does not explicitly disclose the wood of the curved wooden staves is treated with open flame to facilitate aging of the content of the wooden bottle.
In the field of wooden bottle for aging wine and whiskey, Ganti discloses the wood of the curved wooden staves is treated with open flame to facilitate aging of the content of the wooden bottle (refer to Paragraph 0005 cited: “…This invention relates to a wooden bottle designed and sized for retail sale. Its interior is heat treated with flame, to prepare it to age liquids such as whiskey and wine…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CN8981’s bottle with the wood of the curved wooden staves is treated with open flame to facilitate aging of the content of the wooden bottle, as taught by Ganti, in order to prepare the bottle to age liquids (refer to Paragraph 0005 cited: “…This invention relates to a wooden bottle designed and sized for retail sale. Its interior is heat treated with flame, to prepare it to age liquids such as whiskey and wine…”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN2728981Y (previously cited) herein set forth as CN8981, in view of DAVID (US0175178A previously cited) herein set forth as DAVID, further in view of Eutis (US2008/0000356A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Eutis.
Regarding claim 10, the modification of CN8981 and DAVID discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, CN8981 does not explicitly disclose the curved wooden staves are carved from oak.
In the similar field of wooden barrel, Eutis discloses the curved wooden staves (refer to annotated “barrel staves”, fig.10-12) are carved from oak (refer to paragraph 0027 cited: “…The container walls are made of semi-permeable material such as oak, wood or other suitable (food grade) semi-permeable material which allows for the infusion of oxygen from the atmosphere through the walls of the container to interact with the Wine in the Reaction Region…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CN8981’s bottle with using oak wood, as taught by Eutis, in order to provide a better semi-permeable material (refer to paragraph 0027 cited: “…The container walls are made of semi-permeable material such as oak, wood or other suitable (food grade) semi-permeable material which allows for the infusion of oxygen from the atmosphere through the walls of the container to interact with the Wine in the Reaction Region…”).
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 YEONG JUEN THONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6930. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 5712705095. 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.
/YEONG JUEN THONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 May 22th 2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
1 As evident of natural occurrence of gas exchanges, NPL – “Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition” written by Maria Del Alamo-Sanza & Ignacio Nevares; published by Taylor & Francis 2017 Maria del Alamo-Sanza and Ignacio Nevares; on September 6th 2017. For natural occurrence refer to Page 4/17 for gas exchange, Page 6/17-7/17 for exchanging gas at joints, Page 9/17-10/17 for alcohol transfer from the content to the outside environment.(Previously cited)
2 As evident of natural occurrence of gas exchanges, NPL – “Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition” written by Maria Del Alamo-Sanza & Ignacio Nevares; published by Taylor & Francis 2017 Maria del Alamo-Sanza and Ignacio Nevares; on September 6th 2017. For natural occurrence refer to Page 4/17 for gas exchange, Page 6/17-7/17 for exchanging gas at joints, Page 9/17-10/17 for alcohol transfer from the content to the outside environment.(Previously cited)
Prosecution Insights