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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 and 18-20 in the reply filed on 7/15/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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.
Claims 1-13 and 18-20 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the “beer transforms into a spirit” and claim 18 recites “transforms the beer”. However, it is unclear how the beer is transformed (i.e., what physical parameters).
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 5,695,795 (MURRAY) in view of Rodrigues, et al., Probing beer aging chemistry by nuclear magnetic resonance and multivariate analysis, Analytica Chimica Acta (2011, pg. 178-187 (RODRIGUES).
PNG
media_image1.png
280
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
73
637
media_image2.png
Greyscale
MURRAY teaches a method for converting beer into spirits, comprising: producing a beer (col. 6, lines 55-60). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to keep the beer in a tank. Moreover, the process of producing and finish the beer would naturally introduce oxygen into the product.
MURAY teaches that it is desirable to accelerate the aging of the beer (col. 8, lines 20-25).
The composition can be chilled in a range of -2°C to -5°C for a chill period (col. 15, lines 5-10). This overlaps that claimed.
The product can then be filtered (col. 16, lines 35-40). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to pump the resulting liquid through a filtration system.
As to the alcohol content of the beer, MURRAY teach the use of high gravity beers (col. 8, lines 64-67) but does not recite the alcohol content of the beer. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide a beer with a varying alcohol content.
MURRAY does not teach treating/aging the beer at 45-50oC.
However, RODRIGUES teaches that beer can be aged 45°C for up to 18 days (see pg. 179, Section 2.1). This changes the flavor profile of the beer. The following aging stages were characterized by gradually more marked decreases in GABA, unknowns 1 and 7 and ratio linear/branched dextrins and increases in 5-HMF, acetic, pyruvic and succinic acids and unknowns 3, 5 and 6. In addition, over-aged beer (days 13 and 18) shows an inversion of the increasing trend for acetic, pyruvic and succinic acids and unknown 3 (See Conclusion).
Thus, it would have been obvious to age the beer to 45°C for up to 18 days to obtain the desired flavor compounds.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-13, 18-20 are free of prior art. While the prior art teaches accelerated aging of beer (e.g., Rodrigues) and chill treating such beverages (e.g., MURRAY), the prior art does not teach converting beer into spirits by introducing ultra-high gravity beer between 24% and 54% alcohol by volume; diluting the ultra-high gravity beer to the beer at 21% alcohol by volume by adding a deaerated liquid to the ultra-high gravity beer, introducing the a beer into an aging tank and maintain the temperature, introducing oxygen into the beer while inside the tank, wherein during the aging period the beer transforms into a spirit, and chilling the spirit as claimed.
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 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.
/PHILIP A DUBOIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791