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 Objections
Claims 12-13 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 12, in lines 4-5 delete “to be” since the phrase does not add to the claim and for better form.
Regarding claim 13, in line 5 before “wireless” insert “a” to place the claim in better form.
Regarding claim 17, in line 6 insert “the” before “raw”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 14, 16-17 and 19-20 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.
Regarding claim 14, in line 2 “the oxygen-containing gas in the vessel” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1 does not recite or otherwise indicate such a gas is present in the vessel (e.g., the vessel can be completely filled with the spirit and staves). The rejection can be overcome by removing “the” before “oxygen”.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “the maintaining of the mixture in the vessel is performed based on at least one of a…to produce the matured spirit having a targeted aroma” renders the claim indefinite since claim 1 already requires “maintaining” to be based on “a period of time to produce the matured spirit having the targeted flavor”. It is unclear if the “maintaining” of claim 16 refers to the “period of time” of claim 1, or some other feature (e.g., “maintaining” temperature, pressure, oxygen, etc.). Applicant’s specification indicates that the processing conditions, such as those above, are maintained based on ABV, ratio, and toasting time for “aroma” (paragraphs 78 and 89). The limitation in question to should amended to clarify that “the maintaining of the mixture in the vessel” refers to the disclosed processing conditions.
The limitation “a ratio of air to the raw spirit in the vessel” further renders the claim indefinite since the basis for the ratio is unclear (e.g., mass, volume, mol, etc.) It is noted that the specification provides an example of volume i.e., “may mean the ratio in volume (paragraph 42). The rejection can be overcome by inserting “volume” before “ratio”.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “the maintaining of the mixture in the vessel is performed based on at least one of a…to produce the matured spirit having a targeted color” renders the claim indefinite for the same reason stated for claim 16.
The limitation “a ratio of air to the raw spirit in the vessel” renders the claim indefinite for the same reason stated for claim 16. The rejection can be overcome by inserting “volume” before “ratio”.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “a targeted flavor value, a targeted taste value or a targeted aroma value” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what feature(s) are encompassed by the respective values. The specification states “target values may be target values for desired flavor, taste, and/or aroma parameters” (paragraph 66), but does provide sufficient detail for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine what the “parameters” are. There is no clear indication of what “parameters” are being measured to determine the respective “value”.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation “a spirit to air ratio inside the vessel” renders the claim indefinite for the same reason stated for claim 16. The rejection can be overcome by “volume” before “ratio”.
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.
Claims 1-7, 12-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson et al. (US 2011/0070331 A1) in view of Wood NPL and Pritchett (US 1,976,091). Blacklight NPL is relied on as evidence for claim 15.
The limitation “matured spirit” is hereon interpreted in view paragraph 20 of the specification to encompass spirits having any degree of transition toward a state of having one or more selected profile characteristics recognized by the art (e.g., flavor, color, aroma, etc.), regardless of whether or not the “transition” is completed. The limitation “micro-staves” is hereon interpreted in view of paragraph 22 of the specification to encompass “staves” as is known in the art, and having the disclosed dimensions. The limitation “toasted micro-staves” is hereon interpreted in view of paragraph 23 of the specification. The limitation “charred micro-staves” is hereon interpreted in view of paragraph 24 of the specification.
Regarding claim 1, Watson et al. teaches a method for accelerating the aging of distilled spirits to produce a desired flavor profile (abstract), comprising forming a set of micro-staves from wood and selecting a plurality of micro-staves comprising raw, roasted and charred micro-staves based upon a targeted flavor of the matured spirit (paragraphs 23, 25-26 and 29), introducing the plurality of micro-staves 110 and the raw spirit into a vessel 20 of a spirits processor 10 (figure 1; paragraph 21), and maintaining the mixture in the vessel for a period of time to produce the matured spirit having the targeted flavor (paragraphs 61-62). The process uses wood in the form of pieces or chips having a range of sizes including powder or chips of 1-5 mm (paragraph 23). Wood pieces having a particle size of 1-5 mm reads on Applicant’s disclosed dimensions for the micro-staves i.e., “equal to or less than approximately 20 mm x 20 mm x 100 cm, but greater than approximately 0.9 x 0.9 x 0.9 mm.”
Watson et al. does not teach inspecting at least one of the wood or the set of micro-staves using at least one of blue, black, or UV light to identify and exclude sapwood.
Wood NPL teaches that wood can be identified based on fluorescent properties when exposed to black light, where different wood species exhibit different fluorescence notes (pages 1-2). Further, the method can be used to distinguish between heartwood and sapwood (page 2 “Raspberry Jam” notes).
Pritchett teaches a process for quickly “mellowing” (maturing) beverages to improve color and flavor (page 1 left column lines 1-4), including alcoholic beverages (page 2 line 12), comprising forming chips from green heart white oak wood, where the heartwood is preferred over the sapwood due to “considerably more ageing principle” and less astringent tannic acid (page 1 left column).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Watson et al. to inspect the wood or micro-staves using black light to identify and exclude sapwood since the prior art recognizes that sapwood can be identified using fluorescence and that heartwood is more concentrated in desirable components than sapwood and provides less astringent compounds, and therefore to provide the advantages taught by Pritchett and to optimize extraction of flavors and/or matured spirit production.
Regarding claim 2, Watson et al. teaches the micro-staves are roasted at 280-410oF for 2-4 hours (paragraph 25). Applicant’s specification states toasting is performed at 330-500oF for 10 minutes up to 100 hours (paragraph 27). Therefore, Watson et al. is construed to teach “toasted” micro-staves. Additionally, the reference teaches the wood can also be raw or charred (paragraph 25).
Regarding claim 3, the wood pieces or chips present in the “group of micro-staves” reads on the claimed dimensions as stated above.
Regarding claim 4, Watson et al. does not specify the micro-staves are 5 mm x 5 mm x 2 cm.
However, the reference teaches the size of the micro-staves can be varied, where different sizes impart different flavor or other characteristics to the matured spirits based on features such as surface area available for contact with the alcohol and components to be extracted (paragraph 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the micro-staves of Watson et al. to have the claimed dimensions since there is no evidence of record indicating criticality or unexpected results associated with the feature, and since the claimed values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as desired flavor, aroma, and color of the matured spirits, as well as the rate and degree of extraction of compounds from the micro-staves into the alcohol.
Regarding claim 5, the wood pieces or chips present in the “group of micro-staves” reads on the claimed dimensions as stated above.
Regarding claim 6, the one or more processing conditions can be maintained for a period of time, such as 24 hours (paragraph 66).
Regarding claim 7, the one or more processing conditions include temperature, pressure, or oxygen content as stated for claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Watson et al. teaches adding ethanol with the micro-staves into the vessel such that the mixture occupies 75-90% of the vessel volume, where the remaining volume is air (paragraph 45), and heating the mixture to 170oF while maintaining for 24 hours (paragraph 66).
Watson et al. does not specify the claimed range of spirit/air ratios.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Watson et al. to use the claimed ratios since the reference overlaps the range at 75/25 spirit/air and states “other volume percentages are within the scope”, and teaches controlling oxygen content to obtain a desired flavor and facilitate aging (paragraphs 33 and 41), since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, and since the values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as those stated above.
Regarding claim 13, Watson et al. teaches a stirring unit for agitating the mixture and a “kinetic energy source [85]” i.e., a heating system for the vessel (figure 1; paragraphs 43-44 and 46). A control system 1000 comprises controller 120 operable to control operations of the system, including temperature and speeds (paragraphs 74-75), the controller connected by one of wired or wireless connection as is known in the art (figures 2 and 10; paragraphs 76 and 81-82).
Regarding claim 15, the combination applied to claim 1 teaches blacklight (Wood NPL). Blacklights are UV lights as taught by Blacklight NPL (pages 1-2).
Regarding claim 16, in view of the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) above, the limitation “the maintaining…having a targeted aroma” is interpreted to refer to maintaining process conditions as explained above, and the limitation “a ratio of air to the raw spirit” is interpreted to be with respect to volume.
Watson et al. teaches toasting micro-staves as stated for claim 2, where the wood is toasted at different temperatures for different periods to produce desired flavor in the matured spirit (paragraph 25), where conditions of the aging process can be controlled to obtain desirable aromas (paragraphs 22 and 30). Such conditions include oxygen content based on desired reactions to form desired compounds (paragraphs 17 and 33). Further, the ratio of air to raw spirit in the vessel is controlled (paragraph 45).
Claims 8-11, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson et al. in view of Wood NPL and Pritchett as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lange (US 2021/0198604 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Watson et al. teaches the wood can be a combination of untoasted, toasted, and charred wood (paragraph 25), but does not specify a ratio of each based on the targeted flavor of the matured spirit.
Lange teaches a method for conditioning wood used in barrels for the production of aged alcoholic distillate (paragraphs 11 and 22), where the wood includes a variety of wood types to impart different flavors to the distillate (paragraphs 90 and 92). A portion of the selected wood is toasted for a duration and a temperature in order to obtain desired characteristics that are imparted to the matured spirits (paragraphs 108-109). Likewise, a portion of the selected wood is charred for a duration at a temperature in order to obtain desired characteristics that are imparted to the matured spirits (paragraphs 111-112). A combination of toasting and charring can be used (paragraph 114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose a desired ratio of said micro-staves for the same reasons disclosed by the prior art i.e., imparting desired characteristics such as flavor, color, and aroma to the matured spirits, particularly since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature.
Regarding claim 9, Watson et al. teaches the wood can be roasted at different temperatures for different periods to produce desired flavor in the resulting matured spirits (paragraphs 25-26). Lang teaches that a wood “toasting” process having specific temperature, duration, and results is used to achieve desired characteristics in the matured spirits (paragraph 108) as stated for claim 8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to tailor the toasting temperature and time based on the targeted flavor of the matured spirit for the same reasons stated for claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, Watson et al. teaches toasting at 280-410oF for 2-4 hours (paragraph 25).
Regarding claim 11, Watson et al. further teaches the surface area available for contact with the raw spirits contributes to the degree of characteristics imparted to the matured spirits (paragraph 23).
Lang further teaches charring is performed to develop certain properties in the wood that are transferred to the matured spirits (paragraph 111).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to tailor the charred surface area of the micro-staves based on the targeted flavor of the matured spirits since the claimed feature is recognized by the prior art to obtain the same results, and therefore to obtain matured spirits having desired characteristics.
Regarding claim 14, Watson et al. teaches controlling oxygen content in the vessel e.g., as air, based on desired flavor or any other reason (paragraph 33). Likewise, the pressure and temperature can also be controlled (paragraphs 45-46). The reaction is monitored over time for the concentration of certain components such as aldehydes and esters (paragraphs 52-53). Additionally, the treated micro-staves provide components that transfer flavor related characteristics to the matured spirits (paragraphs 23 and 25).
Lange further teaches the characteristics imparted to the matured spirits by the treated wood can be determined by any suitable method, including gas chromatograph mass spectrometry (paragraph 220), where said method is used to determine “key compounds” present within the matured spirits (paragraphs 215-216).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Watson et al. to control the temperature, oxygen, and/or pressure in the vessel based on a gas chromatograph mass spectrometry analysis of the mixture since the reference already acknowledges controlling the claimed parameters based on desired flavor and testing the matured spirit to determine the presence of particular compounds, since the prior art recognizes that accelerated maturation processes are performed for a period of time to ensure that desired flavor compounds are imparted and/or generated within the matured spirits, where determination of said compounds within the matured spirits can be measured by known means such as gas chromatograph mass spectrometry, and therefore to similarly ensure the matured spirits contain the appropriate flavor compounds associated with traditionally matured spirits.
Regarding claim 17, in view of the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) above, the limitation “the maintaining…having a targeted color” is interpreted to refer to maintaining process conditions as explained above, and the limitation “a ratio of air to the raw spirit” is interpreted to be with respect to volume.
Watson et al. does not teach the features with respect to color.
However, the reference teaches charring as stated for claim 2 and the surface area available for contact with the raw spirits contributes to the degree of characteristics imparted to the matured spirits (paragraph 23).
Lange teaches charring for color (paragraph 111).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Watson et al. such that the maintaining is based on a percent charring of the charred micro-staves since the prior art recognizes surface area and charring both affect characteristics such as color imparted onto the spirit, and therefore to similarly obtain a desired color and flavor based on the type of matured spirit (e.g., tequila versus whiskey).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson et al. in view of Wood NPL, Pritchett, Lange and Mitchell et al. (US 2020/0248113 A1).
Regarding claim 19, in view of the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) above, the limitation “a targeted flavor value, a targeted taste value or a targeted aroma value” is interpreted to be any measurable value recognized by the art to be associated with the respective targeted characteristics.
The combination of Watson et al., Wood NPL, and Pritchett applied to claim 1 teaches the features of “inspecting…”, “treating…” introducing…” and “maintaining…” as stated for said claim. The same combination is applied to claim 19 and would have been obvious for the same reasons.
The combination of Watson et al. and Lange applied to claim 8 renders obvious a ratio of the toasted and charred micro-staves in the plurality of micro-staves. The same combination is applied to claim 19 and would have been obvious for the same reasons.
Watson et al. does not teach “setting a targeted characteristic value…or a targeted aroma value” and “creating a recipe…for the matured spirit”.
Lange teaches various characteristics imparted by wood to a beverage can be determined by suitable methods (paragraph 220), where measured values include content specific compounds (paragraphs 236-248 and 293-294; tables 4-5) and color (paragraph 292).
Mitchell et al. teaches a method for aging spirits (abstract) comprising treating wood chips by toasting and charring based on desired flavors or compounds to be imparted onto the spirit (paragraph 68), placing distilled spirit into a vessel with raw, toasted, and charred wood chips, heating and maintaining for a period of time to obtain the matured spirit with desired characteristics (paragraphs 17-18, 33, 37-38, 40 and 43). The process includes use of device 202 comprising known computing features (paragraphs 47-54), where a library of recipes defines the processing parameters for different spirits to achieve different flavor profiles, including specific flavors and tastes (paragraph 55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Watson et al. to perform the claimed “setting” and “creating” features since the prior art recognizes desired compounds can be quantified and a recipe can be used to obtain desired flavor characteristics, and therefore to perform the process in the same manner for each batch of the same type of matured spirit to ensure consistency of desired flavor characteristics between each batch.
Regarding claim 20, Watson et al. teaches controlling toasting time and temperature for a desired flavor (paragraph 25), a wood loading percentage (paragraph 31), a residence time (paragraph 62), a temperature and pressure of the vessel (paragraph 46), and a spirit to air ratio inside the vessel (paragraph 45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the above features in the recipe of process parameters since the prior art recognizes such parameters for obtaining desired characteristics in the matured spirit, and for the same reasons stated for claim 19.
Response to Arguments
The rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) are withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim 1. The claim is now rejected under 35 USC 103. Zimlich and Kohler are no longer relied upon. New claims 19-20 are addressed herein.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but the amendments to claim 1 necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Pritchett is relied on for motivation to exclude sapwood, where Wood NPL teaches sapwood can be distinguished from heartwood using a blacklight. Blacklight NPL shows that blacklight is a type of UV light.
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 BRYAN KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0338. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (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 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.
/BRYAN KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 1792