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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/22/2025.The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 12/22/2025, claims 40-45 are newly added; claims 18-21, 23-28 and 30-45 are pending, claim 21 remains withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 18-20, 23-28, 30-35, 38 and 39 have been amended.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 33 recites the limitation: “a device adapted for controlling a rate of flow, speed, direction, mass, shape, and pressure of at least one of a working fluid and the infusion agent” being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder “device” that is coupled with functional language “controlling a rate of flow, speed, direction, mass, shape, and pressure of at least one of a working fluid and the infusion agent” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “device” , no corresponding structure is disclosed in the specification.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 33 recites the limitation: “… a device adapted for controlling a rate of flow, speed, direction, mass, shape, and pressure of at least one of a working fluid and the infusion agent” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not support for the limitation “a device adapted for controlling a rate of flow, speed, direction, mass, shape, and pressure of at least one of a working fluid and the infusion agent”. Para.006 only discloses: “ the specialized stopper has a second end adapted for reversibly connecting to … a device adapted for passing at least one of a working fluid and an infusion agent”, but not “a device adapted for controlling a rate of flow, speed, direction, mass, shape, and pressure of at least one of a working fluid and the infusion agent” as recited in claim 33. Therefore, the above limitation is new matter.
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 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 33 recites the limitation “… a device adapted for controlling a rate of flow, speed, direction, mass, shape, and pressure of at least one of a working fluid and the infusion agent” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts of the claimed “device” for performing the entire claimed function “controlling a rate of flow, speed, direction, mass, shape, and pressure of at least one of a working fluid and the infusion agent” and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
For examination purposes, the claimed “device” is construed as any structure(s) that is adapted for “controlling a rate of flow, speed, direction, mass, shape, and pressure of at least one of a working fluid and the infusion agent” as recited in claim 33.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 18-20, 23-28, 30, 40-41, 43 and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Ryu (WO2012057453A2)
Regarding claim 18, Ryu discloses
A fluid container (wooden barrel, see title and fig.1-3) comprising:
a surface (surface of the wood barrel, see fig.1-3);
wherein the fluid container comprises at least one of a whole fluid container, a partial fluid container, a stave, a cube, a tile, and a chip (see fig.1, page 2, line 40: “(Stave) made of wood” and para.0001: “The present invention relates to a liquor storage container for liquid food, and more particularly, to a liquor storage container for liquid food storage”. Therefore, the wooden barrel comprises at least a stave or comprises a whole/partial liquor container);
wherein the surface (surface of the wood barrel, see fig.1) comprises a material (wood) being reconditioned (see page 5, lines 8-13) including an infusion agent (rosin solution”, see page 1, lines 58-60: “The side board is characterized in that the side board is provided with a rosin solution dissolving in alcohol”) infused into at least one of a pore, a cell and a fiber of the material (internal issue of the wood) after maintaining the material under a select vacuum for withdrawing a fluid (air, see page 5, lines 8-13 and lines 20-22) from the at least one of the pore, the cell and the fiber of the fluid container (internal issue of the wood barrel ) prior to infusion (see page 5, lines 20-22: “the board is put into the pressure tank, the air in the tank is taken out, and the air is drained from the internal structure of the board by holding it in vacuum (500 mmHg to 700 mmHg) for 20 minutes to 40 minutes, And the ethanol is poured into it to flood the board” and page 5, lines 8-13: “The reduced pressure treatment method is a method in which water vapor and air in conduits and voids inside a board are blown into a pressure tank at a pressure of 500 mmHg or more for 20 minutes or more, 40 minutes, and then immersed in the rosin ethanol solution in the vacuum state for 4 hours to 6 hours to inhale and diffuse the rosin ethanol solution into the internal tissue due to the capillary phenomenon and the pressure difference. Thereafter, ethanol, which is a solvent, is volatilized to cause the concentrated rosin to seal the conduits and voids inside the board“), reconditioning not comprising soaking the material in water (Ryu does not disclose “soaking the material in water”).
Regarding claim 19, Ryu further discloses the fluid container (wooden barrel, see fig.1-3) comprises a whole fluid container having a body adapted for containing a fluid (see fig.1 and para.0001: “The present invention relates to a liquor storage container for liquid food, and more particularly, to a liquor storage container for liquid food storage”); and
wherein the surface (surface of the wood barrel, see fig.1-3) comprises an interior surface of the body of the fluid container (interior surface of the body of the wood barrel, see fig.3).
Regarding claim 20, Ryu further discloses the fluid container (wooden barrel, see fig.1-3) comprises a whole fluid container adapted for containing a fluid (see fig.1 and para.0001: “The present invention relates to a liquor storage container for liquid food, and more particularly, to a liquor storage container for liquid food storage”);
wherein the fluid container comprises a specialized stopper (cap, see page 6, lines 54-55: “The injection hole 141 is provided with a cap made of wood or silicon for opening and closing the injection hole 141”) having a first end configured for insertion into an opening (141, see fig.1) of the fluid container (wooden barrel, see fig.1) thereby sealing the fluid container (wooden barrel, see fig.1).
Regarding claim 23, Ryu further discloses the infusion agent (rosin solution”, see page 1, lines 58-60) induces a chemical reaction in a second fluid (alcohol) which is in contact with the fluid container (wooden barrel, see fig.1 and page 2, lines 58-60: “The side board is characterized in that the side board is provided with a rosin solution dissolving in alcohol so as to prevent nausea while having a wood aroma and taste, or being provided on the surface by being filled in an inner conduit“).
Regarding claim 24, Ryu further discloses the infusion agent (“rosin solution”, see page 1, lines 58-60) comprises at least one of an alcohol component, a fruit component, a fruit concentrate component, a coffee component, a tea component, an herb component, a synthetic flavoring component, a natural flavoring component, and a combination of at least two of the aforementioned components (see page 8, lines 34-38: “Pine resin is a sticky resin that flows out from pine tree wounds and is mainly secreted from the bark and precipitates a white solid from resin acid. It dissolves in ethanol and acetic acid but does not dissolve in water. When distilled with water vapor to obtain turpentine oil, rosin remains. Ingredients are rosin 70-75%, turpentine 18-22%, water and other impurities 5-7%. The rosin is sticky when warm, smells of pine trees”. Therefore, the rosin solution comprises at least natural flavoring component or herb component).
Regarding claim 25, Ryu further discloses the infusion agent includes at least one of the synthetic flavoring component, the natural flavoring component, and the combination of the aforementioned components (rosin solution dissolving in alcohol”, see page 1, lines 58-60).
Regarding claim 26, Ryu further discloses the infusion agent (rosin solution dissolving in alcohol”, see page 1, lines 58-60) includes the alcohol component (alcohol).
Regarding claim 27, Ryu further discloses the infusion agent (rosin solution) introduces an aroma (“smells of pine trees”, see page 8, lines 34-38) to a second fluid (alcohol) which in contact with the fluid container (see fig.1 and para.0001: “The present invention relates to a liquor storage container for liquid food, and more particularly, to a liquor storage container for liquid food storage).
Regarding claim 28, Ryu further discloses the infusion agent introduces a flavor (“smells of pine trees”, see page 8, lines 34-38) to a second fluid (alcohol) which is in contact with the fluid container (see fig.1 and para.0001: “The present invention relates to a liquor storage container for liquid food, and more particularly, to a liquor storage container for liquid food storage).
Regarding claim 30, Ryu further discloses the specialized stopper (cap, see page 6, lines 54-55: “The injection hole 141 is provided with a cap made of wood or silicon for opening and closing the injection hole 141”) is configured for creating a pressure seal of the fluid container (wooden barrel, see fig.1) when the first end is inserted into the opening (141, see fig.1) of the fluid container wooden barrel, see fig.1).
Regarding claim 40, Ryu further discloses the fluid container (barrel, see fig.1) comprises the partial fluid container (fig.1 and page 5, lines 12-13: “, ethanol, which is a solvent, is volatilized to cause the concentrated rosin to seal the conduits and voids inside the board”. Thus, the barrel contains a partial ethanol).
Regarding claim 41, Ryu further discloses the fluid container comprises the stave (See fig.1 and page 2, line 40: “(Stave) made of wood”).
Regarding claim 43, Ryu further discloses the fluid container comprises the tile (See page1, line 46: “European oak is tile rosis”).
Regarding claim 45, Ryu further discloses the material comprises wood (See title).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu in view of Marino (US 20140360971 A1)
Regarding claim 31, Ryu discloses all the claimed limitations as set forth, except the specialized stopper has a second end adapted for reversibly connecting to a pressure gauge.
the specialized stopper (100, see figs.8-9) has a second end (see second end in annotated fig.9 below) adapted for reversibly connecting to a pressure gauge (122, see figs.8-9).
PNG
media_image1.png
366
623
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figures 8-9 of Marino
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the second end of the specialized stopper of Ryu to be “adapted for reversibly connecting to a pressure gauge” as taught by Marino. Doing so helps to monitor the pressure within the barrel of the in order to preserve the alcoholic beverage's quality, flavor, and enjoyment for a longer period.
Claim 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu in view of Al-Dhafeeri (US 20110232368 A1)
Regarding claim 32, Ryu discloses all the claimed limitations as set forth, except the specialized stopper has a second end adapted for reversibly connecting to a temperature gauge.
Al-Dhafeeri discloses an apparatus and process for testing a sample of a hydraulic fracturing fluid, comprising:
the end-cap 16 has a second end (upper end of 16, see fig.1) adapted for reversibly connecting to a temperature gauge (42, see fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the second end of the specialized stopper of Ryu to be “adapted for reversibly connecting to a temperature gauge” as taught by Al-Dhafeeri. Doing so allows to monitor the temperature directly inside the barrel which provides a more accurate picture of the alcoholic beverage's condition and allows for more precise control over its aging process (see para.0034 of Al-Dhafeeri).
Claim 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu in view of Kalalau US 20170035188 A1
Regarding claim 33, Ryu discloses all the claimed limitations as set forth, except the specialized stopper has a second end adapted for reversibly connecting to a device adapted for controlling a rate of flow, speed, direction, mass, shape, and pressure of at least one of a working fluid and the infusion agent.
Kalalau discloses a system including a hydration system and a device that is detachably coupled to the hydration system and that transports fluid to be consumed or otherwise used by a user, comprising:
the hose 108 has a second end adapted for reversibly connecting to a device (104, see fig.1) adapted for controlling a rate of flow, speed, direction, mass, shape, and pressure of at least one of a working fluid and the infusion agent (see para.0031: “the nozzle 124 may control the rate of flow, speed, direction, mass, shape, and/or pressure of the stream of fluid that exits the mouthpiece 122”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the second end of the specialized stopper of Ryu to be “adapted for reversibly connecting to a device adapted for controlling a rate of flow, speed, direction, mass, shape, and pressure of at least one of a working fluid and the infusion agent” of Kalalau. Doing so allows to control the direction or characteristics of the flow of the fluid so that the user may determine a preferred rate, pressure, and/or direction in which the fluid exits (See para.0031 of Kalalau).
Claim 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu in view of Weinberg (US 20100006603 A1)
Regarding claim 34, Ryu discloses all the claimed limitations as set forth, except
the specialized stopper has a second end adapted for reversibly connecting to a sealing device.
Weinberg discloses fluid dispensers, comprising:
the specialized stopper (80, see fig.19) has a second end (upper end of 80, see fig.19) adapted for reversibly connecting to a sealing device (the wine bottle sealing and dispensing device 10, see fig.19).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the second end of the specialized stopper in Ryu to be “adapted for reversibly connecting to a sealing device” as taught by Weinberg. The modification provides for the dispensing of alcoholic beverage from the barrel without exposing the alcoholic beverage in the barrel to environmental air at any time ( see para.0010 of Weinberg).
Claims 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu in view of Philip (GB2219520A)
Regarding claim 35, Ryu discloses all the claimed limitations as set forth, except
The container of claim 320,wherein the specialized stopper has a second end adapted for reversibly receiving a screen or mesh.
Philip discloses a Wine filter, comprising:
the specialized stopper (04, see fig.2) has a second end (see second end in annotated fig.2 below, see fig.2) adapted for reversibly receiving a screen or mesh (02, see fig.2 and abstract page 1, (57)).
PNG
media_image2.png
305
578
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.2 of Philip
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the second end of the specialized stopper in Ryu to be “adapted for reversibly connecting to a sealing device” as taught by Philip, for the purpose of removing any pieces of damaged cork from the wine (see abstract page 1, (57)).
Regarding claim 36, the modification discloses all the claimed limitations as set forth, except the first end of the specialized stopper has a hole therein; the second end has an opening shaped in a bowl like configuration, the screen or mesh being sized for being placed in the opening; and the specialized stopper further comprises a hollow tube in fluidic communication with the hole of the first end and the opening of the second end.
Philip further discloses the first end (see first end in annotated fig.2 below) of the specialized stopper (04) has a hole (see fig.2-3. Because the wine can pour through the stopper section 04, the stopper section has a hole) therein;
the second end (see second end in annotated fig.2 below) has an opening (opening where the mesh 02 is attached) shaped in a bowl like configuration (see fig.2. See 112(b) rejections above), the screen or mesh (02) being sized for being placed in the opening (opening where the mesh 02 is attached); and
the specialized stopper (04) further comprises a hollow tube (01, see fig.2) in fluidic communication with the hole of the first end (hold of the annotated first end) and the opening (opening where the mesh 02 is attached ) of the second end (see second end in annotated fig.2 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
306
650
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.2 of Philip
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the first and second ends of the specialized stopper in the combination of Ryu and Philip to have “a hole therein; the second end has an opening shaped in a bowl like configuration, the screen or mesh being sized for being placed in the opening; and the specialized stopper further comprises a hollow tube in fluidic communication with the hole of the first end and the opening of the second end” as taught by Philip, for the purpose of removing any pieces of damaged cork from the wine (see abstract page 1 of Phillip).
Claim 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu in view of Philip as applied to claim 36 and further in view of Fernando (WO 2014114827 A1)
Regarding claim 37, the modification discloses all the claimed limitations as set forth, except a product capable of burning is disposed onto the screen or mesh.
Fernando discloses a stopper for bottles for alcoholic drinks, comprising:
a product (wood 3, see fig.20) capable of burning (one of the ordinary skill would understand that wood is capable of burning) is disposed onto the screen or mesh (see fig.20-21 in upside-down position, the wood 3 is disposed onto the lower surface of the mesh 9).
PNG
media_image4.png
224
471
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figures 20-21 of Fernando in upside-down position
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the combination of Ryu and Philip to incorporate “a product capable of burning is disposed onto the screen or mesh” as taught by Fernando. The wood allows to transmit colors, aromas and / or flavors to the alcoholic beverage contained in the bottle, and / or prolong or replace the aging process (page 2, lines 77-78 of Fernando).
Claim 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu in view of McKinney (US 20110108511 A1)
Regarding claim 38, the modification discloses all the claimed limitations as set forth, except the specialized stopper comprises silicone.
McKinney discloses a stopper for wine, soda and most other disposable bottles used by a home consumer, comprising:
the specialized stopper comprises silicone (See abstract: “The present invention is a bottle stopper produced by a thermal molding method using silicones or materials with similar characteristic”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the specialized stopper in Ryu to comprise silicone as taught by McKinney. Doing so allows “the stopper to be removed more easily than any other wine stop that provides a reusable seal” (see para.0015 of McKinney).
Claim 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu
Regarding claim 39, Ryu discloses all the claimed limitations as set forth, except the infusion agent is infused into at least one of the pore, the cell and the fiber of the material in a volumetric ratio in a range of .375 L to 1.5 L per 200 L fluid container.
The courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (see fig.1), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa). In this case, Ryu teaches the infusion agent is infused into at least one of the pore, the cell and the fiber of the material in a certain volumetric ratio, and having a specific “volumetric ratio in a range of .375 L to 1.5 L per 200 L fluid container” is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the volumetric ratio is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case varying the “volumetric ratio in a range of .375 L to 1.5 L per 200 L fluid container” to control the sealing of the conduits and voids inside the board effectively, is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Claim 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu in view of Sullivan US 5481960 A
Regarding claim 42, Ryu discloses all the claimed limitations as set forth, except
the fluid container comprises the cube.
Sullivan discloses a barrel, comprising:
the fluid container comprises the cube (See abstract: “ quantity of small oak cubes are placed inside a section of perforated tube and the ends of the tube are sealed”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the fluid container of Ryu to comprise the cube as taught by Sullivan. Doing so “assists in the aging of the wine and imparts a desirable flavoring characteristic to the wine” (See col.1 lines 12-13 of Sullivan).
Claim 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu in view of Lix US 20120088018 A1
Regarding claim 44, Ryu discloses all the claimed limitations as set forth, except the fluid container comprises the chip.
Lix discloses a whiskey making method, comprising:
the fluid container comprises the chip (See para.007: “wood insert separated into pieces or chip.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the fluid container of Ryu to comprise the chip as taught by Lix. Doing so maximizes its aging surface area. In this manner, the barrel wood is cost-effectively recycled thereby conserving a scarce albeit renewable resource (See para.003 of Lix).
Response to Arguments
Claim interpretation: Regarding claim 33, Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive because the amended portion of claim 33: ““… a device adapted for controlling a rate of flow, speed, direction, mass, shape, and pressure of at least one of a working fluid and the infusion agent” is not supported by the current application so that one of the ordinary skill would not understand the corresponding structure of the claimed “device” (See claim interpretation and 112 rejections above).
112(b) rejections: the amended limitation raised new issue(s) so that the 112(b) rejection is maintained.
102 rejections:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 18 under 102 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ryu.
Claims 19-20, 23-28, 30-35, 38 and 39 are rejected by the virtue of the dependency upon claim 18.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2943940 A discloses method and apparatus for preserving the contents of pervious containers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 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, Edward Landrum can be reached on (571) 272-5567. 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights