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 .
The amendment filed 1/6/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7, 10-12, and 17-26 are pending. Prior objections and rejections not included below are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
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 1-7, 10-12, 17-26, 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. The claim(s) contains subject matter 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. Claim 1 recites a “vapor capturing system”, which encompasses a wide variety of possible configurations and system types. The published application provides for a filter system configured to capture vapors [0030, 0063] but not a generic vapor capture system.
Claims 2-7, 10-12, and 17-26 depend from independent Claim 1 and are therefore also rejected.
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)(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) 1, 3, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watson (US 20110129589).
Regarding Claim 1, Watson teaches a method for producing a spirit. The method comprises adding a spirit to a vessel [0021], adding organic material such as wood chips (which are the same as micro-staves) [0023], maintaining the organic material together with the spirit for a period of time [0062], and capturing the vapors with a vapor collection system [0055].
Regarding Claim 3, Watson teaches that the product has a desired flavor profile at reduced cost compared to a conventionally produced product [0004], which is “greater value”.
Regarding Claim 17, Watson teaches that the maturing process occurs for 1-14 days [0061].
Regarding Claim 18, Watson teaches that the wood chips, or microstaves, may be untoasted, baked (which is the same as toasted), or charred [0025].
Regarding Claim 19, Watson teaches the addition of gases [0033-0034].
Regarding Claim 20, Watson teaches the control of temperature [0047], pressure [0046], and agitation [0043].
Regarding Claim 21, Watson teaches the use of chips having dimensions ranging from 1-5 mm [0023]. Note that absent evidence to the contrary, the dimensions of Watson are interpreted to be square dimensions. Watson therefore teaches the use of wood chips, or micro-staves, with dimensions that lie within the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 22, Watson teaches that the method provides a desired flavor profile corresponding to a distilled, aged spirit [0004] such as aged whiskey [0003].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson in view of Ceeaton (https://www.winemakingtalk.com/threads/oak-chips-after-your-done-smoker.65103/, March 2018)
Regarding Claim 2, Watson teaches the method as describe above in regards to Claim 1 but does not discuss specific uses of the micro-staves.
Ceeaton teaches that oak chips previously used to impart flavor to a spirit can be used for smoking food and add a “real nice flavor” (Page 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the microstaves of Watson for a purpose other than spirits maturing, such as smoking food. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to since Ceeaton teaches that the microstaves can add a desirable flavor.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson in view of Hall (US 20180371387).
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, Watson teaches the method as discussed above in regards to Claim 1 but does not discuss “taste fingerprinting” of a user.
Hall teaches a method for rapid spirits maturing [0014]. Hall additionally teaches that maturing conditions can be modified in response to customer surveys regarding flavor [0045], and that such surveys can be used to formulate a product with greater purchase intent.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to provide a sample of spirits to a user, and to receive feedback from the user, and additionally to modify the product according to the feedback. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since providing samples and receiving feedback are known to be essential method steps for conducting a customer survey, and Hall teaches that customer surveys can be used to formulate a product that produces greater purchase intent.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson in view of distillerytrail.com (https://www.distillerytrail.com/blog/what-is-a-farm-distillery/, 2015)
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, Watson teaches that the ethanol source may be a distilled spirit [0017]. Note that the use of a distilled spirit requires that the spirit is transported “from the distilling system to the vessel”. Watson does not specifically address locating the vessel at a distillery or farm.
Distillerytrail.com teaches that distilleries can be located on a farm (Paragraph 1), and can produce spirits that can be directly sold to consumers (Bullet point 3 and Paragraph 5). Distillerytrail.com teaches that this creates a good customer experience (Paragraph 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the method of Watson at a distillery or farm. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to create a good consumer experience.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson in view of Cioletti (https://daily.sevenfifty.com/accelerating-the-aging-of-spirits/, August 2018).
Regarding Claim 10, Watson teaches the method as discussed above in regards to Claim 1 but does not discuss the use of a mobile platform with wheels.
Cioletti teaches that accelerated aging of spirits can be achieved via the use of pressure and wood inside tanks (Page 3, Paragraph 1). Cioletti additionally shows that the method utilizes the use of vessels on mobile platforms with wheels (Page 5, Image).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a vessel using wheels, as taught by Cioletti, as the vessel in the method of Watson. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to since Cioletti teaches that such a vessel is appropriate for rapid spirits maturing purposes.
Claims 11, 12, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson in view of Duggins (US 4173656).
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, Watson teaches the method as described above in regards to Claim 1 but does not discuss utilizing a capsule.
Duggins teaches a method for rapid spirits aging (Column 1, Lines 65-68). Duggins teaches that chunks of wood (which are micro-staves) be placed within a capsule during the aging process (Column 2, Lines 53-56). Duggins teaches that the use of a capsule allows for good circulation and prevents blocking of a pouring spout (Column 2, Lines 34-46). Note that Duggins teaches that the capsule (i.e. the aging device) contains circulated liquor (which comprises ethanol).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a capsule comprising ethanol as claimed in the method of Watson. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to enhance circulation and prevent blockage of a pouring spout.
Regarding Claim 24, Watson teaches the method as described above in regards to Claim 1, including the use of micro-staves within a reaction vessel [0022] intended to accelerated aging [0018] (which is the same as a “maturation unit”), and dispensing the spirit to e.g. a bottling line [0063]. Note that a “dispensing unit” encompasses any equipment which has the function of dispensing. Additionally, note that any equipment which is integrated into the housing of the maturation unit is “in the housing of the maturation unit”. Watson not discuss utilizing a capsule comprising the micro-staves.
Duggins teaches a method for rapid spirits aging (Column 1, Lines 65-68). Duggins teaches that chunks of wood (which are micro-staves) be placed within a capsule during the aging process (Column 2, Lines 53-56). Duggins teaches that the use of a capsule allows for good circulation and prevents blocking of a pouring spout (Column 2, Lines 34-46). Duggins additionally teaches that the capsule is placed within a large container such as a drum or tank (Column 5, Lines 44-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a capsule comprising ethanol as claimed in the method of Watson. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to enhance circulation and prevent blockage of a pouring spout.
Regarding Claim 25, Watson teaches the use of micro-staves in a vessel, as described above in regards to Claim 1. Note that the published application at [0041] describes “wood concentrate” as micro-staves of wood. Watson does not specifically describe a “wood concentrate chamber of the vessel.”
Duggins teaches a method for rapid spirits aging (Column 1, Lines 65-68). Duggins teaches that chunks of wood (which are micro-staves) be placed within a capsule, which is a “wood concentrate chamber” according to the Claim, during the aging process (Column 2, Lines 53-56). Duggins teaches that the use of a capsule allows for good circulation and prevents blocking of a pouring spout (Column 2, Lines 34-46). Duggins additionally teaches that the capsule is placed within a large container such as a drum or tank (Column 5, Lines 44-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a capsule comprising a wood concentrate as claimed in the method of Watson. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to enhance circulation and prevent blockage of a pouring spout.
Regarding Claim 26, Watson teaches the addition of water and ethanol (or spirit) to a chamber which comprises the micro-staves (Page 2, Figure 1). Watson teaches that the organic material [0022], water, and ethanol [0018] are added into the vessel from a separate source, which meets the limitation(s) of “storing the sprit in a spirit chamber”, and “storing water in a water chamber”.
Note that Duggins teaches the storage of a “wood concentrate…in a wood concentrate chamber” as described above in regards to Claim 25. Watson additionally teaches that the amount of ethanol, water, and organic material are added based on user input [0074].
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson in view of Silvestre-Albero, “Ethanol removal using activated carbon: Effect of porous structure and surface chemistry”, DOI: 10.1016/j.micromeso.2008.10.012, October 2008)
Regarding Claim 23, Watson teaches that the vapor capturing system captures vapors when the vessel is in use or opened [0055].
Watson does not specifically address the use of a filter in the vapor capturing system.
Silvestre-Albero teaches that ethanol emissions from, e.g. distilleries (Introduction, Paragraph 1) can be effectively removed via filtration (Introduction, Paragraph 2) and/or activated carbon. Note that the published application teaches the use of an activated carbon filter [0063].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a filter, such as an activated carbon filter, in the vapor capture system of Watson. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Silvestre-Albero teaches that such systems are effective for removing ethanol vapors from the air.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 DEBORAH LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5685. The examiner can normally be reached 12-8 Eastern Time.
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.
/D.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights