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 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.
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(s) 39-41 and 45-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H06104054 B2.
The instant claims are directed to a sake replica. It is noted that replica means an exact copy or model of something. Hence, the limitation of “sake replica” is interpreted as a product suitable to be consumed as sake and being an exact copy of sake, i.e. sake.
JP H06104054 B2 discloses “soft-type sake with improved bitterness, astringency, and sourness, and a method for producing the same and a method for improving the same” (TECHNICAL FIELD).
In regard to the presence or absence of various VOCs, which is interpreted as Volatile Organic Compounds), JP H06104054 B2 discloses:
The present inventors have conducted extensive studies to solve the above-mentioned problems, and as a result, by performing an electrodialysis treatment of sake with a cation exchange membrane and an anion exchange membrane, it has been known that bitterness, astringency, and miscellaneous taste are improved. The inventors of the present invention have completed the invention, knowing that a soft type of sake different from the existing sake is produced. That is, the present invention, compared to the original sake composition, sake degree, alcohol (%), extract content, isomaltose, glucose, galactose, glycerin, n-propyl alcohol, isobutyl alcohol, isoamyl alcohol, isoamyl acetate, caproic acid. The composition content of ethyl does not substantially change, succinic acid, lactic acid, malic acid, Na+ ion, K+.
It is a novel soft type sake which is characterized by having a reduced composition content of ions, tryptophan, arginine, lysine, putrescine and cadaverine. Further, the present invention is a method for producing soft type sake or a method for modifying sake, characterized by subjecting sake to electrodialysis treatment having a cation exchange membrane and an anion exchange membrane. The novel soft type sake of the present invention is a specific composition component described above, which is reduced as compared with the original sake composition, whereby bitterness and astringency while having the original taste of sake. A novel and unprecedented new sake with improved taste and miscellaneous taste was obtained. For example, the sake degree, alcohol (%), extract content, isomaltose, glucose compared to the original sake composition. , Galactose, glycerin, n-propyl alcohol, isobutyl alcohol, isoamyl alcohol, isoamyl acetate, ethyl caprate composition content does not substantially change, succinic acid and lactic acid are reduced by 20-60%, malic acid is 25- 80% reduction, Na .sup.+Ions reduced by 40-85%, K .sup.+ ions reduced by 50-95%, Tryptophan reduced by 30-80%, Arginine by 10-40%, Lysine is reduced by 5 to 30%, and putrescine and cadaverine are reduced by 80 to 90% ([Means for Solving the Problems] section).
In regard to the presence and absence of various compounds in claims 39-42 and 45-46, it is noted that although the reference does not specifically disclose every possible quantification or characteristic of its product, these characteristics would have been expected to be as claimed absent any clear and convincing evidence and/or arguments to the contrary. The reference discloses the same product as instantly (both broadly and more specifically) claimed, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the presence and absence of various compounds in claims 39-42 and 45-46 among many other characteristics of the product obtained by referenced method, would have been an inherent result of the process disclosed therein. The Patent Office does not possess the facilities to make and test the referenced method and product obtain by such method, and as reasonable reading of the teachings of the reference has been applied to establish the case of obviousness, the burden thus shifts to applicant to demonstrate otherwise.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 2 of the Reply to the Non-Final office action mailed February 14, 2025, Applicant states that “[i]n contrast, the presently claimed sake replica is not made using traditional methods and is less complex than traditional sakes”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the process/method of making sake) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The instant claims are not directed to the process/method of making sake. The instant claims are directed to the sake replica (i.e. beverage a product suitable to be consumed as sake and being an exact copy of sake, i.e. sake).
In response to applicant's argument regarding the presence and absence of various compounds in claims 39-42 and 45-46, it is noted that although the reference does not specifically disclose every possible quantification or characteristic of its product, these characteristics would have been expected to be as claimed absent any clear and convincing evidence and/or arguments to the contrary. The reference discloses the same product as instantly (both broadly and more specifically) claimed, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the presence and absence of various compounds in claims 39-42 and 45-46 among many other characteristics of the product obtained by referenced method, would have been an inherent result of the process disclosed therein. The Patent Office does not possess the facilities to make and test the referenced method and product obtain by such method, and as reasonable reading of the teachings of the reference has been applied to establish the case of obviousness, the burden thus shifts to applicant to demonstrate otherwise.
Applicants have not provided any evidence that the claimed composition is different from the sake as disclosed by JP H06104054 B2. Applicants have not provided any evidence of unexpected properties in the form of a direct or indirect comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims.
Applicants’ attention is further directed to the following passages in the MPEP:
Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (differences in sedative and anticholinergic effects between prior art and claimed antidepressants were not unexpected). In In re Waymouth, 499 F.2d 1273, 1276, 182 USPQ 290, 293 (CCPA 1974), the court held that unexpected results for a claimed range as compared with the range disclosed in the prior art had been shown by a demonstration of "a marked improvement, over the results achieved under other ratios, as to be classified as a difference in kind, rather than one of degree." Compare In re Wagner, 371 F.2d 877, 884, 152 USPQ 552, 560 (CCPA 1967) (differences in properties cannot be disregarded on the ground they are differences in degree rather than in kind); Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) ("we generally consider a discussion of results in terms of ‘differences in degree’ as compared to ‘differences in kind’ . . . to have very little meaning in a relevant legal sense").
The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (Mere conclusions in appellants’ brief that the claimed polymer had an unexpectedly increased impact strength "are not entitled to the weight of conclusions accompanying the evidence, either in the specification or in a declaration."); Ex parte C, 27 USPQ2d 1492 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (Applicant alleged unexpected results with regard to the claimed soybean plant, however there was no basis for judging the practical significance of data with regard to maturity date, flowering date, flower color, or height of the plant.). See also In re Nolan, 553 F.2d 1261, 1267, 193 USPQ 641, 645 (CCPA 1977) and In re Eli Lilly, 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990) as discussed in MPEP § 716.02(c).
Evidence of unexpected properties may be in the form of a direct or indirect comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) and MPEP § 716.02(d) - § 716.02(e). See In re Blondel, 499 F.2d 1311, 1317, 182 USPQ 294, 298 (CCPA 1974) and In re Fouche, 439 F.2d 1237, 1241-42, 169 USPQ 429, 433 (CCPA 1971) for examples of cases where indirect comparative testing was found sufficient to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.
Evidence of unexpected results must be weighed against evidence supporting prima facie obviousness in making a final determination of the obviousness of the claimed invention. In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978).
Where the unexpected properties of a claimed invention are not shown to have a significance equal to or greater than the expected properties, the evidence of unexpected properties may not be sufficient to rebut the evidence of obviousness. In re Nolan, 553 F.2d 1261, 1267, 193 USPQ 641, 645 (CCPA 1977).
Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980).
An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). "A comparison of the claimed invention with the disclosure of each cited reference to determine the number of claim limitations in common with each reference, bearing in mind the relative importance of particular limitations, will usually yield the closest single prior art reference." In re Merchant, 575 F.2d 865, 868, 197 USPQ 785, 787 (CCPA 1978) (emphasis in original). Where the comparison is not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be explained, In re Finley, 174 F.2d 130, 81 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1949), and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation should be required. In re Armstrong, 280 F.2d 132, 126 USPQ 281 (CCPA 1960) (deviations from example were inconsequential).
The totality of the record must be considered when determining whether a claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Therefore, evidence and arguments directed to advantages not disclosed in the specification cannot be disregarded. In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 298-99, 36 USPQ2d 1089, 1094-95 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Although the purported advantage of placement of a selective catalytic reduction catalyst in the bag retainer of an apparatus for controlling emissions was not disclosed in the specification, evidence and arguments rebutting the conclusion that such placement was a matter of "design choice" should have been considered as part of the totality of the record. "We have found no cases supporting the position that a patent applicant’s evidence or arguments traversing a § 103 rejection must be contained within the specification. There is no logical support for such a proposition as well, given that obviousness is determined by the totality of the record including, in some instances most significantly, the evidence and arguments proffered during the give-and-take of ex parte patent prosecution." 66 F.3d at 299, 36 USPQ2d at 1095.). See also In re Zenitz, 333 F.2d 924, 928, 142 USPQ 158, 161 (CCPA 1964) (evidence that claimed compound minimized side effects of hypotensive activity must be considered because this undisclosed property would inherently flow from disclosed use as tranquilizer); Ex parte Sasajima, 212 USPQ 103, 104 - 05 (Bd. App. 1981) (evidence relating to initially undisclosed relative toxicity of claimed pharmaceutical compound must be considered).
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 VERA STULII whose telephone number is (571)272-3221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30AM-3:30PM.
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 at 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.
/VERA STULII/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791