Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/788,482

METHOD FOR PRODUCING DE-ALCOHOLIZED BEVERAGE, METHOD FOR PRODUCING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING AROMA COMPONENT DERIVED FROM ALCOHOL-CONTAINING BEVERAGE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jun 23, 2022
Examiner
LEBLANC, KATHERINE DEGUIRE
Art Unit
1791
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Suntory Holdings Limited
OA Round
2 (Final)
34%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
4y 0m
To Grant
69%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 34% of cases
34%
Career Allow Rate
201 granted / 596 resolved
-31.3% vs TC avg
Strong +35% interview lift
Without
With
+35.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 0m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
646
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
57.1%
+17.1% vs TC avg
§102
9.1%
-30.9% vs TC avg
§112
28.0%
-12.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 596 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 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) 1,2,5-7,9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schutter(WO 2018134285A1). Regarding claims 1,6,7,9, Schutter teaches(para 9, 43,46) A method of producing a dealcoholized beverage, the method comprising the steps of:(A) separating ethanol and an aroma component from an alcohol-containing beverage to obtain a mixture containing the ethanol and the aroma component and a residual liquid which remains after the separation of the ethanol and the aroma component from the alcohol-containing beverage; (B) bringing a resin into contact with the mixture containing the ethanol and the aroma component to cause the resin to adsorb the aroma component; (D) recovering the aroma component from the resin, for example a styrene resin, and (E) mixing the residual liquid obtained in the step (A) with the aroma component obtained in the step (D) to obtain a dealcoholized beverage. Schutter teaches that the beverage contains “beer flavors” that contribute to its “complex olfactory profile”(para 16). Therefore, the beverage is a “beer-taste beverage”. Schutter does not specifically teach removing ethanol from the resin having absorbed the aroma compound. However, Schutter teaches mixing the residual liquid(retentate) with the flavor component(3b). It would have been obvious to remove the ethanol component since Schutter desires only the flavor component to be added back to the residual liquid. Furthermore, alcohol free beverages are well known in the art. As such, it would have been obvious to adjust the alcohol content of the final beverage depending on the preferences of the consumer, i.e. a low alcohol or no alcohol beverage. Schutter does not specifically teach removing the alcohol with water and recovering the aroma by eluting the aroma component from the resin with steam. However, since these are both common separation methods in the art, it would have been obvious to practice either method to recover the alcohol and flavor components. Regarding claim 2,5, Schutter teaches that the alcohol containing beverage is beer which is known to have an ethanol content of 0.1 to 60v/v%(para 9). Regarding claims 8 and 9, Schutter does not specifically teach removing the alcohol with water and recovering the aroma by eluting the aroma component from the resin with steam. However, since these are both common separation methods in the art, it would have been obvious to practice either method to recover the alcohol and flavor components. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that alcohol is added back into the permeate with the flavor component, and that the absorbent material has a low affinity for alcohol, so the ethanol would be removed by water and added in with the beer concentrate. However, Schutter teaches(abstract) “A method for preparing beer concentrate, comprising the steps of: A) Subjecting beer or cider (1) to a first concentration step to obtain a retentate (2) and a permeate (3) comprising alcohol (3a) and volatile flavour components (3b), B) Subjecting the permeate (3) to an adsorption unit whereby the volatile flavour and alcohol-containing permeate is passed over or through an adsorption unit, C) Recovering one or more of the flavour components (3b) from the adsorption unit in a further recuperation process D) Combining the retentate (2) with the flavour components (3b).” It is clear from this passage that the alcohol and flavor components form the retentate in step A. Step D recites that only the flavor component 3b is added back in with the retentate. The reference does not say anything about adding the alcohol in as well. Applicant’s argument pertaining to the affinity of the absorbent material for ethanol is also not persuasive. As stated above, it does not appear that Schutter requires alcohol in the beer concentrate because the reference never states putting alcohol back in with the retentate. Schutter also states that(para 33) “After the concentraton step, the highly concentrated retentate (2) is collected while the aqueous permeate (3) is processed by an adsorption unit in order to selectively retrieve volatile flavour components and optionally ethanol.” Therefore, Schutter teaches that absorption and retention of ethanol is optional and not the main focus of the invention. Lastly, Schutter teaches(para 40) “The adsorbent employed in accordance with the present invention have an affinity for one or more of the aforementioned beer flavour substances, thus enabling the selective removal of at least one of these beer flavour substances. In addition, the adsorbent typically have a low affinity for ethanol.” This section specifically states that the absorption material selectively absorbs beer flavor, in order to achieve selective removal of these flavors. Later these flavors are added back in with the retentate(abstract). Since the absorbent material has a low affinity for ethanol, the alcohol is intended to be not saved but instead washed away by water before adding to the retentate. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KATHERINE D LEBLANC whose telephone number is (571)270-1136. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM EST M-F. 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. /KATHERINE D LEBLANC/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 23, 2022
Application Filed
Sep 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 10, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 20, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600802
CONVERTED STARCH AND FOOD COMPRISING SAID CONVERTED STARCH
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593859
HIGH LOAD FLAVOR PARTICLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12532897
FROZEN CONFECTION MANUFACTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12495822
Structuring Agent for Use in Foods
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Patent 12478076
COFFEE COMPOSITION AND ITEMS MADE THEREFROM
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 25, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
34%
Grant Probability
69%
With Interview (+35.1%)
4y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 596 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

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

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month