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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it’s not in a single paragraph format. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 7, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 is vague and indefinite. It’s unclear if the proteinaceous foaming agent is part to the .1-25% protein recited in claim 1 or a totally different protein component.
In claim 13, the recitation of “ the combined internal volume” does not have proper antecedent basis.
In claim 14, the limitation of “ proteinaceous foaming agent” is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear if the protein foaming agent is part of the protein recited in claim 1 or a separate protein component. Step a is vague and indefinite. The step recites combining a liquid aqueous composition and a source of proteinaceous foaming agent to produce the aqueous liquid. However, the aqueous liquid in claim 1 is recited as having 0-10% ethanol and .1-25% protein. If the aqueous liquid comprises ethanol, it’s unclear where the ethanol comes from. It’s also unclear where the protein comes from. Step b is vague and indefinite. The step recites “ the liquid alcoholic composition containing at least 30% ethanol. However, claim 1 recites “ an alcoholic liquid containing 20-99.9% ethanol”. The at least 30% does not cover the entire range of claim 1. The same problem is noted for the range of hop acids. It’s unclear if the method recited in claim 14 is preparing the capsule of claim 1.
In claim 15, the recitation of “ any one of claim 1” is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear what is intended by it. There is only 1 claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson ( 2016/0230133) in view of Schuh ( 2016/0073673).
For claim 1, Peterson discloses a single beverage cartridge. The cartridge comprises separate chambers. One chamber comprises a beverage concentrate and another chamber comprises distilled alcohol solution. The beverage concentrate comprises high solid content of 30% or more and an alcohol content of 20% or less, including less 5%. The dissolved solids in the beverage concentrate includes proteins, sugars. The distilled alcohol solution comprises an ethanol concentration of at least 70%. The aroma component extracted from the distilled alcohol solution can be added to the beverage concentrate or kept in the alcohol solution to alter the flavor or aroma of a beverage made from the cartridge. The complex aromatic character of hops aroma can be preserved by maintaining the hops aroma compounds in the distilled alcohol solution. Peterson discloses a relatively small amount of concentrate may be used to make a significantly larger volume of beverage, e.g 50 ml of concentrate by be used to form a 350 ml beverage. The cartridge may take any suitable form such as pod, capsule etc.. ( see paragraphs 0003,0008-0012,0025-0033,0038-0040)
For claim 14, Peterson discloses a method of preparing a single serve capsule comprising the steps of preparing a beverage concentrate, preparing a distilled alcohol solution, providing a capsule comprising at least two compartments, introducing the beverage concentrate into one compartment and introducing the distilled alcohol solution into another compartment and closing the capsule with a lid. ( see paragraphs 0038,0039)
For claim 15, Peterson discloses a method of preparing a hoped alcoholic beverage comprising the steps of loading the cartridge into a cartridge holder of a beverage machine, delivering liquid to the machine to cause carbon dioxide to be generated, releasing the beverage concentrate from one compartment , releasing the distilled alcohol solution from another compartment, mixing the carbonated liquid and the beverage medium provided by the two compartments and dispensing the beverage. It’s obvious that foam head will form as the result of the carbonation. ( see paragraphs 0046-0051)
Peterson does not disclose the amount of beverage concentrate, protein, hop acid and volume of ethanol and water as in claim 1, the adding of coloring agent as in claims 2-3, the pH as in claim 5, the ingredients as in claims 6-12, the volume as in claim 13, the amount of protein and hop acid as in claim 14.
Schuh discloses a beverage precursor for preparing alcoholic beverages such as gin, beer, wine etc.. Schuh teaches to add different flavoring groups to obtain specific flavor and aroma. For instance, ethyl acetate, ethyl hexanoate is added to obtain fruity aroma. Organic acids such as succinic acid, lactic acid etc.. are added form sour taste. Sweeteners such as glucose, fructose, are added to obtain sweet taste. Hop extract, iso extract, humulone etc.. are added for bitter taste. Ingredients such as carrageenan, whey protein, pectin, xanthan gum, gellan gum etc.. are added for umami taste and mouthfeel. Schuh discloses that colorant can be added to the beverage precursor such that the beverage formed from the beverage precursor has the color of a desired beverage. ( see paragraph 0005-0014, 0058, tables 4A, 4B, 8A, 8B, 9A, 9B,12A,12B,13A,13B.
Peterson discloses the hop components can be maintained in the distilled alcohol solution. Thus, it’s obviously inherent that the alcohol solution contains the hop acids as claimed. In any event, it’s known in the art as shown in Schuh that hop acids such as iso extract is used to add bitter taste to an alcohol beverage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add hop acids when desiring to have a bitter taste. The amount added would have been an obvious matter of choice depending on the degree of bitterness. Peterson discloses the beverage concentrate contains protein. It's also known in the art as shown in Schul to add protein for a umami taste and mouthfeel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the to determine the proper amount of protein through routine experimentation to obtain the most optimum mouthfeel and taste. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the volume of the capsule, the ethanol and water content depending on the volume of beverage and the alcohol content of the beverage to be made. Such parameter can readily be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a coloring agent to the beverage concentrate as taught in Schuh to obtain a desire appearance in the final beverage. The particular color selected would have been an obvious matter of choice depending on the color desired. For instance, it would have been obvious to select carotene if an orange hue is desired or malt extract if a brownish hue is wanted. It would have been obvious to add organic acids as taught in Schuh when a sour taste is wanted. It would have been within the skill of one in the art to determine the amount depending on the extent of sourness desired. The pH of the solution would depend on the amount which in turn depends on the degree of sourness desired. Peterson discloses the beverage concentrate contains protein. It's also known in the art as shown in Schul to add protein and gums for an umami taste and mouthfeel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the to determine the proper amount of protein and gum through routine experimentation to obtain the most optimum mouthfeel and taste. Gums such as xanthan gum, cellulose are also a source of soluble fiber. Thus, the addition of such components will provide soluble fiber. The addition of protein and the protein present in the beverage concentrate will function as foaming because the same ingredient is present. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add glucose, fructose etc.. as taught in Schuh when desiring to obtain a sweet taste. The amount added depends on the degrees of sweetness desired. Such parameter can readily be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the volume of the capsule depending on the volume of beverage to be made and the concentration desired. Such parameter can readily be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson in view of Schuh as applied to claims 1-3, 5-15 above, and further in view of Fujino.
Peterson and Schuh do not disclose color units in EBC.
Fujino discloses a process for producing fermented malt drink such as beer. The color of the drink is measured in EBC unit which indicates the light or darkness of the drink. ( see paragraphs 0008,0014)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the color when the alcohol beverage is beer as taught in Fujino so as to obtain a proper color for the beverage. The number will depend on the lightness or darkness desired. Such parameter would have been an obvious matter of choice.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
April 1, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights