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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 18 Aug 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
As a result of the amendments to the claim, the Objections over claim 61 has been withdrawn.
Also, the 112(b) rejection over Claims 61-69, 73 have been withdrawn.
All rejections not repeated in this Office Action have been withdrawn.
Claims 61-69 and 73-79 are currently pending in this Office Action. Claims 74-79 have been withdrawn due to being drawn to the non-elected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 73 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 73, the claim is indefinite because it is not clear if the claimed “processing aid” is intended to assist in both (1) “dosing and/or dispersion of the plant material or a derivative of the plant material” and (2) “addition to or removal of alcohol to the substrate or beverage to render a fortified or de-alcoholized beverage or partly de-alcoholized beverage”. That is, the claim can also be construed as requiring a processing aid that assist in solely limitation (1), and limitation (2) being a separate method step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 61-66, 69, 73 and 80 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 105670870A- machine translations) with evidence by Quercyl (Tanyl T) and Senanayake (Green tea extract: Chemistry, antioxidant properties and food applications – A review).
Regarding Claims 61, 63, Chen discloses a method for the manufacture of a naturally preserved beverage (Sparkling millet wine) that is substantially reduced in supplementary sulphur compounds (no recitation of sulphur compounds added), which includes the steps
a. providing a beverage substrate to a processing vessel (step 11, page 3 of the translations);
b. undertaking treatment of the substrate within the processing vessel (sterilizing as required by Claim 63, step 12, page 3 of the translations);
c. adding plant material (green tea extract, step 2, page 2 of the translations) to the substrate prior to treatment to render a naturally preserved beverage that is substantially reduced in supplementary (added) sulphur compounds (Chen does not require sulphur compounds),
wherein the plant material is from the plant family Theaceae (green tea extract, page 3 after step 13 of the translations, which is in the Camellia sinensis species and the Theaceae plant family).
Chen further teaches wherein the plant material containing simple polyphenolic components classified as condensed tannins (see evidentiary reference Quercyl identifying Tanyl T as a pure condensed tannin extracted from the leaves of the camellia sinensis plant), and repeat chemical units of the polyphenolic components. Since Chen discloses an “extract” of green tea (page 3, after step 13 of the translations), the “extract” is construed to be de-flavored, de-aromatized, and processed to enhance the bioavailability of components within the plant material and processed and augmented into an extract, derivative or infusion of the plant material.
Regarding Claim 62, Chen further teaches wherein the beverage substrate is a grain origin (full grain, step 1, page 2 of the translations).
Regarding Claims 64-66, Chen further teaches subjecting the plant material to at least one treatment step to retain and augment desired phytochemical characteristics (inactivating enzyme at high heat temperature, as required by Claims 65 and 66, see step 7, page 5 of the translations).
Regarding Claim 69, Chen further teaches wherein the phytochemical characteristics is antioxidant activity. See evidentiary reference Senanayake which discloses that Green tea extract can be used in foods to delay oxidation and enhance shelf-life of various food products (abstract).
Regarding Claim 73, Chen further teaches a processing aid to assist in the dispersion of the plant material (soaking, see step 2, page 2 of the translations). As to the step of adding or removing alcohol to the substrate or beverage, since Chen discloses a low-alcoholic beverage at 5% (see abstract), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add or remove alcohol to arrive to the desired final alcohol level.
Regarding Claim 80, Chen further teaches wherein the beverage is wine (Sparkling Millet Wine, see abstract).
Claim(s) 64, 67, and 68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to Claim 61, further in view of Yin et al. (CN 109430863 A).
Regarding Claims 64 and 67, Chen is silent to wherein the at least one treatment step is one of drying and stress induction. Yin is relied on to teach a method of preparing green tea extract using a step of spray drying to obtain green tea powder (page 2, third paragraph). The powder is used as an additive to preserve food as an antioxidant (see abstract). Therefore, since both Chen and Yin uses green tea extract, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use methods of obtaining green tea extract, such as drying to obtain a powder.
Regarding Claim 68, the claim is rejected in view of Claim 67 since the step of stress induction is not required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 18 Aug 2025 has been considered, but is rendered moot in view of the new grounds of rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0346. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached on 571-270-3475. 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.
/T.H.N/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792