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
2. Applicants’ arguments and amendments filed on 7/25/2025, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the following action is final.
Any objections and/or rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Status of the application
3. Claims 1-3 are pending in this application.
Independent claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 1-3 have been rejected.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
(a) Regarding claim 1, line 7 recites “one of the process stages” but should read “one of the at least one or more automatic process stages”.
(b) Regarding claim 1, line 8 recites “with respective preset target values” but should read “with respect to preset target values”.
(c ) Regarding claim 1, lines 6-7 were amended to recite “a plurality of process parameters.” However, the second to last line refers to “the process parameter is selected.” In order to provide consistency in the claim, the limitation should read “the process parameters are selected”.
(d) Claims 2 and 3 should also be modified as they recite “the process parameter.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5a. 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-AlA) 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.
5b. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 that forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
6. 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(a) are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
7. Claims 1, 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Helmut et al. (English Translation of DE102006005975 A Both the article and Figs are attached) in view of Yamakawa et al. US 2010/0291282 and further in view of Bellman et al. (USPN 9795246) further in view of Freas Il et al. (US 2015/0230664) and further in view of Pu et al. WO 2016/090855 and further in view of Duvall et al. US 2015/0216355.
8. Regarding claim 1, NPL Helmut et al. discloses a method for preparing beverages based on fruits comprising a liquid container (14) in which a sieve-like container (13) with a device for comminuting plants/fruit etc. (12) which to be infused by the penetration of liquid including water through the holes of the sieve-like container into the sieve-like container and mixes with the ingredients from which the desired drink is to be made (at least in Claim 1, [0016] of NPL Helmut et al.).
NPL Helmut et al. also discloses that the electric motor and the control for the motor and device are arranged and sensors like temperature sensor are connected to the control arranged ([0012]) to meet “continuous machine sensing of one or more of a group of data consisting of temperature, pressure, and specific gravity, to calculate and execute each succeeding step” as claimed in claim 1. It is to be noted that examiner interprets “one or more of a group of data consisting of temperature, pressure, and specific gravity” is considered as the group from where at least one group can be addressed (Markush). Therefore, it can read on “ machine monitoring of plurality of process parameters” as claimed in amended claim 1 where process parameters include at least one of temperature, pressure, etc. in Markush group of claim 1.
NPL Helmut et al. also discloses that the container can be ‘kettle’ or water heater ([0018]) which can be considered as “machinery” as claimed in amended claim 1.
Therefore, if we consider the disclosure by NPL Helmut et al. as discussed above, the disclosure of mixing liquid (i.e., water) with the comminuted fruits can be interpreted as the method of addition of substance fruit to the infuser liquid e.g., water and therefore, it can read on “adding the substance (e.g., comminuted fruits etc.) to the liquid present in the kettle”.
NPL Helmut et al. is silent about
(i) ‘infusing into a base spirit’ as claimed in claim 1
(ii) “The machinery automatically adding an amount of the substance to the spirits at a process stage at programmed intervals”,
(iii) adding the substance to the spirits in the kettle at programmed intervals, the length of which is programmatically determined based upon continuous machine sensing of one or more of a group of data consisting of temperature, pressure, and specific gravity, to calculate and execute each succeeding step”
With respect to (i), NPL Helmut et al. discloses the water in the liquid container is penetrated through the holes by mixing with fruits ((0016]) to make beverage product.
Yamakawa et al. discloses that the beverages can be alcoholic beverages flavored with natural ingredients (i.e., natural substances) ([O002]) including desired ingredients e.g., crystallized sugar, by using diluted spirit as liquid of desired choice (desired liquid) which results fruit/sweet taste flavored infused spirit e.g. (at least in [0029] of Yamawaka et al.).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify infusible ‘liquid water’ of NPL Helmut et al. to include the teaching of Yamakawa et al. to use ‘diluted spirit’ by mixing spirit with water in order to make fruit flavored infused alcohol spirit beverage drink ([0029]) as desired beverage choice by end user.
With respect to (ii) , Bellman et al. discloses that the apparatus used for infusion purpose and that infusion includes extracting plant based infusing material using water, alcohol etc. (col 1 lines 33-40) which can include agitator (col 3 lines 60-65) and can have desired heating arrangement which is based on solvent used (col 4 lines 1-10).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify NPL Helmut et al. et al. to include the teaching of Bellman et al. to include agitator (col 3 lines 60-65) in such a device to perform thorough mixing for better infusion and mixing to perform the method of making infused spirit.
Pu et al. discloses a plurality of raw material tank containing an automated blending system ([0005]). Pu et al. also discloses that the contents like fingerprints has a unique odor profile for each wine to make desired base wine from various base wine recipes ([0016]). Pu et al. also discloses that the odor profile of a liquor can be determined by electronic nose odor measurement by generating odor map and the peak area can be used to calibrate macromolecules with carbon atoms ranging from 1-22 ([0016], Fig 3). Pu et al. also teaches to select specific recipe (ingredients) in order to have selectively desired base wine ([0016]) and preselected recipes to be considered based on the type of substance to be added. Therefore, it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Pu et al. to “automatically adding an amount of the substance to the spirits at a process stage at programmed intervals, the respective lengths of which intervals and the amount of which substance” to be added as claimed in amended claim 1.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify NPL Helmut et al. et al. to include the teaching of Pu et al. to include automated method to determine the odor profile of a liquor which can be determined by electronic nose odor measurement by generating odor map and the peak area can be used to calibrate macromolecules with carbon atoms ranging from 1-22 ([0016], Fig 3) which will provide an automatic addition of an amount of the substance to the spirits at a process stage at programmed intervals to meet claimed invention.
Regarding (iii) and also the claim limitation automatically controlling “the process parameter(s) e.g. temperature’, etc., by “programming the process at programmed intervals”, with “respective preset target” etc. which provides the provision of “the machinery automatically adding an amount of the substance to the spirits at a process stage at programmed intervals” as claimed in amended claim 1, Freas Il et al. is used as secondary prior art in this respect.
Freas Il et al. discloses that a food/beverage machine ([0051]) can include a computer control program ([0033]), with the respective sensor e.g., plurality of temperature sensors (at least in [0010]) which can be helpful to prepare food either automatically or semi-automatically ([0058]), control speed of mixing, rotation, time duration etc. ([0068]). Therefore, it reads on “the claim limitations of “subjecting the mixture to selected agitation” of claim 1.
Freas Il et al. also discloses that a food/beverage machine ([0051]) can include a computer control program ([0033]), which can control and monitor time duration (at least in [0068], temperature ([O069]) and e.g. heating/cooling (at least in [0066]) in order to monitor and report positional control data ([0038]), [0046], having memory device ([0059]) e.g. which ingredient to add and when to add ([0060], [0064]) and control program provides the various status information including temperature information, time remaining for a particular step etc. ([0046]).
Freas II et al. also discloses that food is prepared either automatically or semi-automatically ([(0058]), control speed of mixing, rotation, time duration etc. ([0068]), monitor and report data describing temperature etc. ([0069]), e.g., heating/cooling (at least in 0066]), monitoring may be embedded within the food preparation device ([0075]), and program can be transferred by program code to data processing system using computer readable signal media ([0085]). Food can be beverage also ([0051]). [0055] adjustable plunging device. Therefore, if we consider the disclosure as discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would use the computer control program can be used by one of ordinary skill in the art to monitor and adjust the desired programming to the programmed device because it can adjust both heating and cooling ([0051]) which can be done by adjusting the programming with respect to the temperature condition. Freas Il et al. also discloses that the data can be monitored and can be periodically and dynamically be taken in response to a request from the computer system ([0069]) in order to continuously monitoring the parameter value during each interval. It would have been obvious to consider disclosed method and apparatus which is sufficient to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform “continuous monitoring the parameter value” during each interval until it matches the present target value and “automatically and instantaneously ending the interval” as claimed in amended claim 1.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art can use the teaching of Freas II et al. to set the program for “adding an amount of the substance” to be automatically added by the machine “at a process stage at programmed intervals”. It is also within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to “determine the respective lengths of which intervals and the amount of which substance “ are determined based upon continuous machine monitoring of plurality of process parameter values” as claimed in amended claim 1.
It is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to can use the combined teachings of the prior arts of record as discussed above adjust the automated machine with the programming provisions to prepare “respective preset target value” containing data for the respective parameters (e.g. Temperature, pressure etc. as discussed above) which can be used by the automated machine to compare the process parameters like e.g., temperature in each batch in order to make the desired matching process parameter value which matches with the preset standardized value.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify NPL Helmut et al. to include the teaching of Freas II et al. to include a computer control program to a food/beverage machine in order to make programmable system to monitor and adjust the process in a continuous automatic manner to make the process more accurate and also provision to keep the record.
(Additionally), Pu et al. also discloses that the temperature sensor controls the desired heating temperature and pressure control sensors are electronically controlled ((0006]- [0008]). Therefore, it meets “one or more of a group of data consisting of temp, sensor” as claimed in claim 1.
Pu et al. discloses that an electronic nose odor measurement on the blended wine sample can be measured and it depends on the type of various base wines respectively and obtain the odor map which determines unique odor profile for each wine (Fig 3 and [0016]). Pu et al. also discloses that the system is designed with a compressed air agitator, in a blending tank having temperature and pressure sensor an odor detecting system, a finished tank, a piping system with filtration and flow control an industrial computer control platform between the raw material and the blending tank, the blending tank and finished product tank, connected to pipeline system and the whole system is controlled by the industrial computer control platform during the blending process (at least in claim 1 of Pu et al.).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify NPL Helmut et al. to include the teaching of Pu et al. to include a subsystem having compressed air agitator in a blending tank an odor detection system determines and guides odor intensity ([(0016], and before the start of the compressed air agitator mediated blending, based on the unique odor profile for each wine, the “agitation blending” is made selected depending on preselected recipe various base wines respectively and obtain the odor map which determines unique odor profile for each wine (Fig 3 and [0016)]).
It is to be noted that Freas Il was used to make obviousness rejection as discussed above in order to address the amended claim limitation of ‘matching adjusting the parameter value until it matches the preset target value’ as claimed in claim 1.
This has additionally been addressed using another secondary prior art by Coleman et al. who addressed it more specifically and discussed below.
9. Regarding claims 1, 2, they are specifically silent about the amended claim limitation of ‘matching adjusting the parameter value until it matches the preset target value’ as claimed in claim 1 and also ‘pressure sensor’ as claimed in claim 2. Coleman et al. discloses that the ‘solvent temperature management system’, ‘pressure regulation system” ([0017]) can be controlled and the data can be stored in a data storage medium for recall and replication through the electronic system ([0018]). Therefore, it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to monitor and to generate preset value when the process parameter is solvent temperature, pressure etc. and the data can be stored in a data storage medium for recall and replication through the electronic system (Coleman et al. [0018]) which ‘preset value can be used to adjust the parameter value until it matches the preset target value’ as claimed in claim 1. This also meets the claim limitations of “wherein the process parameter is temperature’ as claimed in claim 1 and “wherein the process parameter Is pressure” as claimed in claim 2.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify NPL Helmut et al. to include the teaching of Coleman et al. in order to install temperature and pressure sensors to monitor temperature and pressure to generate preset value and to match with the preset target value when the process parameters are temperature and pressure ([0017], [0018]).
10. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Helmut et al. (English Translation of DE102006005975 A Both the article and Figs are attached) in view of Yamakawa et al. US 2010/0291 282 and further in view of Bellman et al. (USPN 9795246) further in view of Freas Il et al. (US 2015/0230664) and further in view of Pu et al. WO 2016/090855 and further in view of Coleman et al. US 2015/021635 as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Ikeda et al. JP 2006038805 A.
11. Regarding claim 3, they are specifically silent about the claim limitation of “wherein the process parameter is specific gravity.
Ikeda et al. discloses that a liquid detection sensor which is a specific gravity sensor (at least in page 5, claims) can be used to serve as specific gravity sensor for sensing specific gravity for the variety of target liquids like beer, juice, medicine (including infusion) and water (at least in page 5 third paragraph).
Therefore, it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to monitor and to generate preset value by using specific gravity sensor (in Ikeda et al. at least in page 5) when the process parameter is specific gravity for a specific solvent and the data can be stored in a data storage medium for recall and replication through the electronic system as disclosed by Coleman et al. (Coleman et al. [0018]) which ‘preset value can be used to adjust the parameter value until it matches the preset target value’ as claimed in claim 1. This also meets the claim limitations of “wherein the process parameter is temperature” as claimed in claim 1 and “wherein the process parameter is pressure” as claimed in claim 2.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify NPL Helmut et al. to include the teaching of Ikeda et al. in order to install specific gravity sensors as taught by Ikeda et al. (at least in page 5 of Ikeda et al.) to monitor specific gravity to generate preset value and to match with the preset target value (Coleman et al. [0017], [0018]) when the process parameter is specific gravity (at least in page 5 of Ikeda et al.).
Response to arguments
12. Applicant’s arguments and amendments as filed on 7/25/2025 have been considered. Applicant’s arguments and amendments overcome 112 second paragraph rejection. However, applicant’s arguments do not overcome the 103 obviousness rejections of record. The reasons are discussed below.
13. Applicants argued on first page that “ Thus the cited references must be distinguished from the claim because they fail to disclose or suggest, singly or in combination, either of the these required limitations. In fact, all of the cited references teach away from the claims by exclusively disclosing automation and control parameters and methods that do not include any of the above required limitations.
Therefore, since none of the cited references disclose or suggest all of the elements of the claims, these claims are not obvious over any or all of the cited references, and Applicants respectfully request reconsideration”.
In response, examiner does not agree. Applicants do not have any specific arguments made for any specific prior arts of record. Therefore, examine is discussing ,in general, the claim limitations and how combined teaching meet the claim limitations of the amended claim 1 which is considered in this office action.
It is to be noted that the amended claim 1 recites “ 1. (Currently Amended) A method of machine infusing a preselected substance into base spirits in a machinery, the machinery comprising one or more automatic process stages, the method comprising the steps of:
the machinery automatically adding an amount of the substance to the spirits at a process stage at programmed intervals, the respective lengths of which intervals and the amount of which substance are determined based upon continuous machine monitoring of a plurality of process parameters in one of the process stages and continuously and instantaneously comparing the process parameter values with respective preset target values of the parameter values for each of the one or more process stages and the machinery continuously monitoring the parameter values during each interval until each respective parameter value matches the respective preset target value and then automatically and instantaneously ending the interval;
wherein the process parameter is selected from the group consisting of process parameters temperature, pressure, and specific gravity and combinations thereof.
If we interpret amended claim 1, it recites “machine monitoring of a plurality of process parameters” and also “the term “respective preset values” can be ‘respective preset values’ for more than one parameter also. However, claim 1 recites “process parameters” in the alternative Markush group which can be one or more parameters to be taken into consideration. Although, examiner already used combined teaching where more than one process parameters are addressed to perform the” plurality of process’ and “respective preset target” can also be addressed from the disclosure which is included in the office action (in bold).
14. It is to be noted that Pu et al. disclosed both the (i) “programmed intervals with respect to the addition of the amount of substance and (ii) also teaches controlling process parameters like temp. etc. control. Therefore, Pu et al. is subdivided to address first part after Bellman et al. and second part after Freas II et al. However no additional addition from Pu et al. has been made in this office action.
!5. It is to be noted that Coleman et al. US 2015/0216355 used in item #7 (Heading) as secondary prior art has wrong inventor’s name. Coleman et al. US 2015/0216355 should be Duvall et al. US 2015/0216355. However, the reference is the same but the name used to refer to the reference has been corrected in this office action above.
As there are no further arguments, the rejection is made as final.
Conclusion
16. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning the communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bhaskar Mukhopadhyay whose telephone number is (571)-270-1139.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/BHASKAR MUKHOPADHYAY/
Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792