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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 03/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 03/17/2026. Claims 1-8, 10-21 are pending in this application. As directed, claims 1, 10, 13 have been amended; claim 9 cancelled; claims 20-21 have been withdrawn. Therefore, claims 1-8, 10-19 are examined as follow.
With respect to Drawings Objections: Applicant’s amendments have not overcome the Drawings Objections set forth in the Final Office Action dated 11/18/2025. Therefore, the Drawing Objections is maintained in this Office Action, see details below in the Drawing Objections section.
With respect to Specification Objections: Applicant’s amendments have not overcome the Specification Objections set forth in the Final Office Action dated 11/18/2025. Therefore, the Specification Objections is maintained in this Office Action, see details below in the Specification Objections section.
With respect to Claim Objections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the Claim Objections set forth in the Final Office Action dated 11/18/2025.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation set forth in the Final Office Action dated 11/18/2025.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) Claim Rejections set forth in the Final Office Action dated 11/18/2025. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) Claim Rejections is maintained in this Office Action, see details below in the 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections section.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Drawings Objections: Applicant(s)’ arguments regarding the limitation “dispensing tap” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant(s)’ Arguments: (Regarding the limitation “dispensing tap” – see details on page 6 of the Remarks dated 03/17/2026)
Applicant alleged that “A "dispensing tap" is a conventional component well known in the art of beverage dispensing systems, and in the claims, the dispensing tap performs in the well- understood, conventional manner of dispensing a liquid. Further, the specification describes a tap as something that dispenses liquid. Specification, at least at p. 20, line 26-27 … the dispensing tap is a conventional feature whose detailed illustration is not essential to a proper understanding of the invention, MPEP § 608.02(d) does not require that the dispensing tap be specifically illustrated in the drawings. Representation of the dispensing tap as a "graphical drawing symbol" in the overall system is sufficient to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a).” – see details on page 6 of the Remarks dated 03/17/2026.
Examiner’s Response:
In response to Applicant’s arguments with respect to Drawings Objections regarding the limitation “dispensing tap”, Examiner respectfully disagrees because it is noted that the “dispensing tap” is not recited, described and illustrated in the original filed disclosure. According to MPEP 608.02(d), the drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “dispensing tap” as recited in claim 1 (lines 14, 19), claim 2 (line 5), claim 3 (line 5) and claim 13 (lines 14, 20) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). It is noted that the definition of “tap” is “a: a plug for a hole (as in a cask) : spigot OR b: a device consisting of a spout and valve attached to the end of a pipe to control the flow of a fluid : faucet” – according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tap, accessed on 04/17/2026]. However, the Drawings of the Instant Application do not show that the dispensing unit 50 is a plug for a hole; similarly, the Drawings of the Instant Application do not show that the dispensing unit 50 is a device consisting of a spout and valve attached to the end of a pipe to control the flow of a fluid. It is further noted that the item 60 shown in Fig.1 is the “water tap 60”, as indicated by the Specification on page 20 line 10, which states: “The device (10) also includes a source of water in the form of a water tap (60)”. Fig.1 shows the water tap 60 is a device consisting of a spout and valve attached to the end of a pipe to control the flow of a fluid. Therefore, if the item 50 were a dispensing tap, Applicant would have had no difficulty showing such a structure in the originally filed disclosure. However, the structure of item 50 is not shown as dispensing tap; item 50 is represented by a trapezoidal box, and it is unclear how to determine its structure. Accordingly, item 50 is not a dispensing tap, since a tap has a clearly defined structure as explained above, which neither shown in the Drawings nor described in the Specification. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments with respect to Drawings Objections regarding the limitation “dispensing tap” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Accordingly, the Drawing Objections is maintained in this Office Action, see details below in the Drawing Objections section.
With respect to the Specification Objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) Claim Rejections: Applicant(s)’ arguments regarding the limitation “dispensing tap” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant(s)’ Arguments: (Regarding the limitation “dispensing tap” – see details on pages 7-8 of the Remarks dated 03/17/2026)
Specifically, Applicant alleged: “The Specification describes a dispensing unit for dispensing reconstituted alcoholic beer. Specification, p. 13, lines 24-16; p. 20, lines 22-24. For example, the claims recite "a dispensing tap for dispensing the alcoholic beer," and Figures 1-2 illustrate dispensing unit 50 as part of the beverage dispensing system. The Specification consistently treats this dispensing unit as a functional component responsible for dispensing liquid beverage to the user. Id., at least at p. 13, lines 24-16; p. 20, lines 22-24; p. 21, lines 4-5, 18-19.
The originally filed Specification also references taps in the context of ordinary water taps (e.g., water tap 60), demonstrating that the Applicant used the term "tap" in its conventional sense to refer to well-known liquid-dispensing hardware. Nothing in the specification suggests that the term "tap" is used to denote a specialized or unconventional structure.
Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have readily understood that the recited "dispensing tap" refers to a conventional liquid-dispensing component associated with the dispensing unit, rather than a specific novel structure. The claims do not rely on any particular configuration of the dispensing tap for patentability. Instead, the dispensing tap performs its well-understood and conventional function of dispensing liquid beer.” – see details on pages 7-8 of the Remarks dated 03/17/2026.
Examiner’s Response:
Applicant(s)’ arguments regarding the limitation “dispensing tap” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons. First, in response to Applicant’s assertation that “the claims recite "a dispensing tap for dispensing the alcoholic beer,"”, Examiner would like to note that the “dispensing tap” is not recited, described and illustrated in the original filed disclosure. The “dispensing tap” was added to the amended claims filed on 10/28/2025. The limitation “dispensing tap” was not mentioned anywhere in the originally filed disclosure. Furthermore, it is noted that the definition of “tap” is “a: a plug for a hole (as in a cask) : spigot OR b: a device consisting of a spout and valve attached to the end of a pipe to control the flow of a fluid : faucet” – according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tap, accessed on 04/17/2026]. Claims 1 and 13 recites “a dispensing tap for dispensing the reconstituted beer” in line 14. Thus, the “dispensing tab” recited in claims 1 and 13 refers to the dispensing unit 50 shown in Figs.1-2 of the Instant Application. However, the Drawings of the Instant Application do not show that the dispensing unit 50 is a plug for a hole; similarly, the Drawings of the Instant Application do not show that the dispensing unit 50 is a device consisting of a spout and valve attached to the end of a pipe to control the flow of a fluid. It is noted that the Specification described “water tap 60” in line 10 of page 20. However, the water tap 60 and the dispensing unit 50 are two different elements, as shown in Figs.1-2 of the Instant Application. Additionally, the Specification on page 20 line 10 states: “The device (10) also includes a source of water in the form of a water tap (60)”, and Fig.1 shows the water tap 60 is a device consisting of a spout and valve attached to the end of a pipe to control the flow of a fluid; thus, the item 60 is a tap. Therefore, if the item 50 were a dispensing tap, Applicant would have had no difficulty showing such a structure in the originally filed disclosure. However, the structure of item 50 is not shown as dispensing tap; item 50 is represented by a trapezoidal box, and it is unclear how to determine its structure. Accordingly, item 50 is not a dispensing tap, since a tap has a clearly defined structure as explained above, which neither shown in the Drawings nor described in the Specification of the originally filed disclosure.
Given above reasons, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Specification Objections and the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) Claim Rejections regarding the limitation “dispensing tap” are not persuasive. Accordingly, the Specification Objections and the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) Claim Rejections are maintained in this Office Action, see details below in the Specification Objections section and the 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections section.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections:
Applicant(s)’ arguments filed 03/17/2026 have been fully considered but are moot based on new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendments. Specifically, the newly added limitations: “wherein the liquid concentrate is a liquid beer concentrate obtained by removing water from an alcohol-free beer having an ethanol content of less than 0.5%ABV by membrane separation and/or freeze concentration” and “a reconstitution unit comprising a static mixer” to the independent claims 1 and 13 have changed the scope of the claims; therefore, the claim interpretation have been changed. Accordingly, the previously cited reference Tatera (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0047386 A1, previously cited) is no longer applied in any rejections in this Office Action.
However, Examiner would like to note that in response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art on record Algazzali, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant(s)’ Arguments: (Regarding the prior art on record Algazzali – see details on pages 9-10 of the Remarks dated 03/17/2026)
Specifically, Applicant alleged that “Algazzali would not have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to deviate from Schuh '232 to include hops acids as claimed. Algazzali describes that iso-alpha acids are the isomerized version of alpha-acids that naturally occur in hops and that these iso-alpha acids are very bitter. On page 48, lines 1-10, Algazzali describes that humulinones and hulupones (oxidised alpha- and beta- acids) although less bitter than iso-alpha acids, are bitter enough to have a potentially significant impact on beer bitterness. Schuh '232 describes hops extract as part of the alcoholic beverage flavor system that is contained in the beverage pod. In as far as Algazzali would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ hops or hop extract in the apparatus of Schuh '232, Algazzali would not have provided any motivation to deviate from the teachings of Schuh '232 by adding hops or hops extract to the alcohol concentrate.” – see details on page 10 of the Remarks dated 03/17/2026.
Examiner’s Response:
In response to Applicant’s argument that “Algazzali would not have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to deviate from Schuh '232 to include hops acids as claimed.”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to note that the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the primary reference Schuh does not mention avoiding hop acids selected from the group consisting of iso-alpha acids, hydrogenated iso-alpha acids, hulupones and combinations thereof, and the prior art Algazzali teaches that the impact of these hop acids on the flavor and bitterness of the beer is substantial – see first paragraph on page 10 and lines 1-10 on page 48 of Algazzali. Thus, in the instant case, the purpose of combining Schuh’s beverage dispensing system with Algazzali’s teachings is not defeated, for, at least, the benefit of achieving desired taste and bitterness of beer, because some people would prefer sweet tasting beer, while others would prefer bitter tasting beer; therefore, the combination is proper. As the obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Moreover, MPEP § 2144.01, suggests that “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976)”. As such, Applicant’s argument “Algazzali would not have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to deviate from Schuh '232 to include hops acids as claimed.”, is not persuasive.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “dispensing tap” as recited in claim 1 (lines 14, 19), claim 2 (line 5), claim 3 (line 5) and claim 13 (lines 14, 20) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). It is noted that the definition of “tap” is “a: a plug for a hole (as in a cask) : spigot OR b: a device consisting of a spout and valve attached to the end of a pipe to control the flow of a fluid : faucet” – according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tap, accessed on 04/17/2026]. However, the Drawings of the Instant Application do not show that the dispensing unit 50 is a plug for a hole; similarly, the Drawings of the Instant Application do not show that the dispensing unit 50 is a device consisting of a spout and valve attached to the end of a pipe to control the flow of a fluid. It is further noted that the item 60 shown in Fig.1 is the “water tap 60”, as indicated by the Specification on page 20 line 10, which states: “The device (10) also includes a source of water in the form of a water tap (60)”. Fig.1 shows the water tap 60 is a device consisting of a spout and valve attached to the end of a pipe to control the flow of a fluid. Therefore, if the item 50 were a dispensing tap, Applicant would have had no difficulty showing such a structure in the originally filed disclosure. However, the structure of item 50 is not shown as dispensing tap; item 50 is represented by a trapezoidal box, and it is unclear how to determine its structure. Accordingly, item 50 is not a dispensing tap, since a tap has a clearly defined structure as explained above, which neither shown in the Drawings nor described in the Specification. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the amended Abstract filed on 10/28/2025 recites “a dispensing tab” in line 9. However, the “dispensing tab” was not described or mentioned in the originally filed disclosure. It is noted that the Drawings shows the dispensing unit 50 in Figs.1-2. However, the dispensing unit 50 is represented by a trapezoid box shape; thus, the structure of the dispensing unit 50 is unclear. See detailed explanation above in the Drawing Objection section.
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 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.
Claims 1-8, 10-19 are 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 (lines 14, 19), claim 2 (line 5), claim 3 (line 5) and claim 13 (lines 14, 20) recite the limitation “dispensing tap”. This limitation was not described in the originally filed disclosure. The “dispensing tap” is not mentioned anywhere in the originally filed disclosure of the Instant Application. Furthermore, it is noted that the definition of “tap” is “a: a plug for a hole (as in a cask) : spigot OR b: a device consisting of a spout and valve attached to the end of a pipe to control the flow of a fluid : faucet” – according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tap, accessed on 04/17/2026]. Claims 1 and 13 recites “a dispensing tap for dispensing the reconstituted beer” in line 14. Thus, the “dispensing tab” recited in claims 1 and 13 refers to the dispensing unit 50 shown in Figs.1-2 of the Instant Application. However, the Drawings of the Instant Application do not show that the dispensing unit 50 is a plug for a hole; similarly, the Drawings of the Instant Application do not show that the dispensing unit 50 is a device consisting of a spout and valve attached to the end of a pipe to control the flow of a fluid. It is noted that the Specification described “water tap 60” in line 10 of page 20. However, the water tap 60 and the dispensing unit 50 are two different elements, as shown in Figs.1-2 of the Instant Application. Additionally, the Specification on page 20 line 10 states: “The device (10) also includes a source of water in the form of a water tap (60)”, and Fig.1 shows the water tap 60 is a device consisting of a spout and valve attached to the end of a pipe to control the flow of a fluid; thus, the item 60 is a tap. Therefore, if the item 50 were a dispensing tap, Applicant would have had no difficulty showing such a structure in the originally filed disclosure. However, the structure of item 50 is not shown as dispensing tap; item 50 is represented by a trapezoidal box, and it is unclear how to determine its structure. Accordingly, item 50 is not a dispensing tap, since a tap has a clearly defined structure as explained above, which neither shown in the Drawings nor described in the Specification of the originally filed disclosure. Therefore, claims 1, 2, 3 and 13 are 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.
Claims 2-8, 10-12 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claims 14-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 13.
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 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 1-2, 4, 8, 10, 12-13, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuh et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0138232 A1, previously cited) in view of Andre et al. (WO 2018100042 A1, newly cited), McGovern et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0136578 A1, previously cited), Algazzali (NPL, “The Bitterness Intensity of Oxidized Hop Acids: Humulinones and Hulupones”, presented on 08/08/2014, previously cited), and Adam et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0106661 A1, newly cited).
Regarding claim 1, Schuh discloses a device (apparatus 20, Schuh Fig.4) for preparing and dispensing reconstituted beer (Schuh Abstract), comprising:
(a) a first vessel (first compartment 12, Schuh Fig.4) containing a liquid concentrate (Schuh Par.0026 discloses: “a first compartment 12 operable to house a beverage concentrate”, Schuh Par.0027 discloses: “the beverage concentrate could be in the form of a semi-liquid or gel. Also preferably, the concentrate is an alcohol-free concentrate of beer, wine, liquor or a mixed drink.”) having an ethanol content of 0-1 % ABV for preparing a beer (since the claim requires ethanol content of 0-1 % ABV for preparing a beer; thus, 0% ABV of ethanol content is also within the claimed range; in this case, Schuh Par.0027 discloses: “the concentrate is an alcohol-free concentrate of beer, wine, liquor or a mixed drink.”, and Schuh Par.0002 discloses: “The beer concentrate can be mixed with water, carbon dioxide and optionally alcohol to form a beer beverage.”; therefore, Schuh discloses 0% ABV of ethanol content for preparing a beer, which falls inside of the claimed range);
(b) a second vessel (second compartment 14, Schuh Fig.4) containing an alcoholic liquid (Schuh Par.0026 discloses: “second compartment 14 operable to house ethanol”, and Schuh Par.0060 discloses: “the alcohol concentrate contained in the second compartment 14, 14′ of the disposable beverage pod 10 is ethanol, which is in liquid form. The alcohol concentrate is included in the second compartment 14 in amount sufficient to form a single serving beverage having an alcohol content ranging from about 0.1% alcohol by volume to about 80% alcohol by volume.”; therefore, Schuh discloses the second compartment 14 containing alcoholic liquid),
(c) a source of water (water reservoir 26, Schuh Fig.4);
(d) a source of pressurized carbon dioxide (pressurized gas canister 28, Schuh Fig.4) (Schuh Par.0069 discloses: “The pressurized gas canister 28 preferably houses carbon dioxide”);
(e) a reconstitution unit (mixing unit 34, Schuh Fig.4) (it is noted that the “reconstitution unit” is being interpreted as “mixer” – see the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation section above for the interpretation of the reconstitution unit); and
(f) a dispensing tap (“outlet”, Schuh Par.0070) (see the 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejection section above for the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections for the claim limitation “dispensing tap”. In this case, since the Instant Application defines the item 50 as shown in Fig.1 is dispensing tap, the item 50 is the outlet for dispensing the reconstituted beer; therefore, the dispensing tap herein is interpreted as the outlet of Schuh) for dispensing the reconstituted beer (Schuh Par.0070 discloses: “ The mixing unit 34 can be housed in the housing 24 and can be operable to receive water, pressurized gas, beverage concentrate and alcohol concentrate prior to dispensing the beverage via the outlet”),
wherein the device (apparatus 20, Schuh Fig.4) is operable
(i) to form a reconstituted beer comprising water from the source of water (water reservoir 26, Schuh Fig.4), carbon dioxide from the source of pressurized carbon dioxide (pressurized gas canister 28, Schuh Fig.4) (Schuh Par.0069 discloses: “The pressurized gas canister 28 preferably houses carbon dioxide”), liquid concentrate from the first vessel (first compartment 12, Schuh Fig.4) and alcoholic liquid from the second vessel (second compartment 14, Schuh Fig.4), in the reconstitution unit (mixing unit 34, Schuh Fig.4) (Schuh Par.0070 discloses: “the apparatus 20 can include a mixing unit 34, which can include a mixing chamber (not shown). The mixing unit 34 can be housed in the housing 24 and can be operable to receive water, pressurized gas, beverage concentrate and alcohol concentrate prior to dispensing the beverage via the outlet”) and
(ii) to dispense the reconstituted beer from the outlet (“outlet”, Schuh Par.0070) (Schuh Par.0070 discloses: “dispensing the beverage via the outlet”).
Schuh does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the liquid concentrate is a liquid beer concentrate obtained by removing water from an alcohol-free beer having an ethanol content of less than 0.5% ABV by membrane separation and/or freeze concentration;
12-100 wt.% ethanol and 0-88 wt.% water, wherein ethanol and water together constitute 80-100 wt.% of the alcoholic liquid;
50-2,000 mg/L of hop acids selected from the group consisting of iso-alpha acids, hydrogenated iso-alpha acids, hulupones and combinations thereof; and
the reconstitution unit comprising a static mixer;
Andre teaches preparing beer concentrate (Andre Title & Abstract), comprising:
wherein the liquid concentrate is a liquid beer concentrate obtained by removing water from an alcohol-free beer having an ethanol content of less than 0.5% ABV by membrane separation and/or freeze concentration (Andre teaches the liquid concentrate is a liquid beer concentrate obtained by removing water from an alcohol-free beer having an ethanol content of less than 0.5% ABV by membrane separation and/or freeze concentration because Andre Par.0004 teaches: “Methods for producing beer concentrates and then rehydrating them into final beverages are known in the art. Various methods for concentrating alcoholic beverages that are known in the brewing industry include such processes as freeze-drying, reverse osmosis, and filtration. All of these methods start with a substantially finished beer and then remove the water.”, and Par.0031 teaches: “After the nanofiltration step, the highly concentrated retentate is collected while the aqueous permeate is fed to the second concentration step b) in order to selectively retrieve ethanol and volatile flavour components, said step either comprising freeze concentration, reverse osmosis or freeze concentration, and/or combination thereof.”; it is noted that Andre title teaches: “PROCESS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF A LOW ALCOHOL OR NON-ALCOHOLIC BEER OR CIDER CONCENTRATE”, and Andre Par.0015 teaches: “whereas "non-alcoholic beer" is defined as a beer having an alcohol content of less than 0,05%ABV”; therefore, Andre teaches the liquid concentrate is a liquid beer concentrate obtained by removing water from an alcohol-free beer having an ethanol content of less than 0.5% ABV by membrane separation and/or freeze concentration)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schuh, by adding the teaching of the liquid concentrate is a liquid beer concentrate obtained by removing water from an alcohol-free beer having an ethanol content of less than 0.5% ABV by membrane separation and/or freeze concentration, as taught by Andre, in order to reduce weight and volume which allows to save on storage and transportation costs, in addition to also often having favourable effect on improving shelf life of a product, as recognized by Andre [Andre, Par.0002].
Schuh in view of Andre does not teach:
12-100 wt.% ethanol and 0-88 wt.% water, wherein ethanol and water together constitute 80-100 wt.% of the alcoholic liquid;
50-2,000 mg/L of hop acids selected from the group consisting of iso-alpha acids, hydrogenated iso-alpha acids, hulupones and combinations thereof;
the reconstitution unit comprising a static mixer;
McGovern teaches alcoholic beverage, such as beer, wine, and the like:
alcoholic liquid comprising 12-100 wt.% ethanol and 0-88 wt.% water (McGovern Par.0020 teaches: “a mixture that is 60 wt % water and 40 wt % ethanol”, therefore, McGovern teaches wt.% ethanol and wt.% water are within the claimed ranges), wherein ethanol and water together constitute 80-100 wt.% of the alcoholic liquid (McGovern Par.0020 teaches: “a mixture that is 60 wt % water and 40 wt % ethanol”; therefore, McGovern teaches ethanol and water together constitute 100 wt.% of the alcoholic liquid, which is within the claimed range);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Schuh concentration of alcoholic liquid (see the Schuh concentration of alcoholic liquid in the second compartment 14 in Schuh Par.0060) with the McGovern concentration of alcoholic liquid (see the McGovern concentration of alcoholic liquid comprising 40 wt.% ethanol and 60 wt.% water in McGovern Par.0020), because the substitution of one known element for another with no change in their respective functions, and the modification would yield a predictable result of providing alcoholic liquid to make beverage. MPEP 2143 I (B).
Schuh in view of Andre and McGovern does not explicitly teach:
50-2,000 mg/L of hop acids selected from the group consisting of iso-alpha acids, hydrogenated iso-alpha acids, hulupones and combinations thereof; and
the reconstitution unit comprising a static mixer;
Algazzali teaches hop acids during the production of beer (Algazzali on pages 1-4):
50-2,000 mg/L of hop acids selected from the group consisting of iso-alpha acids, hydrogenated iso-alpha acids, hulupones and combinations thereof (Algazzali on page 37 – first paragraph teaches: “The range of hop acid concentration levels were purposefully chosen to cover a range of sensory bitterness of just above detection to a strong bitter sensation, hence an iso-α-acid range of 6 to 30 mg/L was selected. The humulinone and hulupone concentration range of 8 to 40 mg/L was chosen based on bench trials to achieve a similar sensory bitterness range of iso-α-acids.”; therefore, Algazzali teaches the combination of hop acids range of 14 to 70 mg/L, which overlaps the claimed range of 50-2,000 mg/L)
The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lay inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the reference shows the combination of hop acids is in range of 14 to 70 mg/L, which overlaps the claimed range of 50-2,000 mg/L; therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schuh in view of Andre and McGovern, by adding the teaching of hop acids concentration comprising iso-α-acid range of 6 to 30 mg/L and humulinone and hulupone concentration range of 8 to 40 mg/L, as taught by Algazzali, in order to achieve desired taste and bitterness of beer since the impact of these hop acids on the flavor and bitterness of the beer is substantial, as recognized by Algazzali [Algazzali on page 10 – first paragraph, and on page 48 – lines 1-10].
Schuh in view of Andre, McGovern and Algazzali does not teach:
the reconstitution unit comprising a static mixer
Adam teaches a device for preparing and dispensing reconstituted beer (Adam Abstract), comprising:
the reconstitution unit comprising a static mixer (Adam Par.0111 teaches: “The mixing chamber can comprise moving element to dynamically mix the components or, alternatively, it may be a static mixer or simply a sharp curving portion in the downstream end of the dispensing tubing system.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schuh in view of Andre, McGovern and Algazzali, by making the reconstitution unit comprising static mixer, as taught by Adam, in order to improve mixing efficiency, thereby producing a more homogeneous mixture. The modification would improve mixing of different viscosities or compositions, improve uniformity of the beverage composition, and enhance consistency of flavor and mouthfeel.
Regarding claim 2, Schuh in view of Andre, McGovern, Algazzali and Adam teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, Schuh also disclose:
wherein the first vessel (first compartment 12, Schuh Fig.4) and second vessel (second compartment 14, Schuh Fig.4) are in fluid communication with and located downstream of the source of water (water reservoir 26, Schuh Fig.4);
wherein the reconstitution unit (mixing unit 34, Schuh Fig.4) is in fluid communication with and located downstream of the first vessel (first compartment 12, Schuh Fig.4), the second vessel (second compartment 14, Schuh Fig.4) and the source of pressurized carbon dioxide (pressurized gas canister 28, Schuh Fig.4); and
wherein the dispensing tap (Schuh outlet in Schuh Par.0070) is in fluid communication with and located downstream of the reconstitution unit (mixing unit 34, Schuh Fig.4) (Schuh Par.0070 discloses: “The mixing unit 34 can be housed in the housing 24 and can be operable to receive water, pressurized gas, beverage concentrate and alcohol concentrate prior to dispensing the beverage via the outlet”).
Regarding claim 4, Schuh in view of Andre, McGovern, Algazzali and Adam teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, Schuh also discloses:
wherein both the first vessel and the second vessel are single serve capsules or wherein the first vessel (first compartment 12, Schuh Fig.4) and the second vessel (second compartment 14, Schuh Fig.4) are compartments of a single serve mutli-compartment capsule (beverage pod 10, Schuh Fig.4) (Schuh Par.0026 discloses: “the disposable beverage pod 10 can include a first compartment 12 operable to house a beverage concentrate and a second compartment 14 operable to house ethanol.”) (it is noted that the limitation “wherein both the first vessel and the second vessel are single serve capsules or wherein the first vessel and the second vessels are compartments of a single serve mutli-compartment capsule” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was given patentable weight during examination; in this case, Schuh teaches the first compartment 12 and the second compartment 14 are compartments of a single serve beverage pod 10).
Regarding claim 8, Schuh in view of Andre, McGovern, Algazzali and Adam teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, Algazzali further teaches:
wherein the liquid concentrate contains 0-100 mg/L hop acids selected from the group consisting of iso-alpha acids, hydrogenated iso-alpha acids, hulupones and combinations thereof (Algazzali on page 37 – first paragraph teaches teaches: “The range of hop acid concentration levels were purposefully chosen to cover a range of sensory bitterness of just above detection to a strong bitter sensation, hence an iso-α-acid range of 6 to 30 mg/L was selected. The humulinone and hulupone concentration range of 8 to 40 mg/L was chosen based on bench trials to achieve a similar sensory bitterness range of iso-α-acids.”; therefore, Algazzali teaches the combination of hop acids range of 14 to 70 mg/L, which is within the claimed range of 0-100 mg/L)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schuh in view of Andre, McGovern, Algazzali and Adam, by adding the teaching of the liquid concentrate contains 14 to 70 mg/L hop acids selected from iso-alpha acids, hydrogenated iso-alpha acids, hulupones and combinations thereof, as taught by Algazzali, in order to achieve desired taste and bitterness of beer since the impact of these hop acids on the flavor and bitterness of the beer is substantial, as recognized by Algazzali [Algazzali on page 10 – first paragraph, and on page 48 – lines 1-10].
Regarding claim 10, Schuh in view of Andre, McGovern, Algazzali and Adam teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, and also teaches:
wherein the membrane separation is selected from the group consisting of nanofiltration, reverse osmosis and forward osmosis (It is noted that the limitation “is selected from the group consisting of nanofiltration, reverse osmosis and forward osmosis” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Andre teaches nanofiltration and reverse osmosis because Andre Par.0004 teaches: “Methods for producing beer concentrates and then rehydrating them into final beverages are known in the art. Various methods for concentrating alcoholic beverages that are known in the brewing industry include such processes as freeze-drying, reverse osmosis, and filtration. All of these methods start with a substantially finished beer and then remove the water.”, and Par.0031 teaches: “After the nanofiltration step, the highly concentrated retentate is collected while the aqueous permeate is fed to the second concentration step b) in order to selectively retrieve ethanol and volatile flavour components, said step either comprising freeze concentration, reverse osmosis or freeze concentration, and/or combination thereof.”; as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 12, Schuh in view of Andre, McGovern, Algazzali and Adam teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, Algazzali also teaches:
wherein the alcoholic liquid contains 14 to 70 mg/L of hop acids selected from the group consisting of iso-alpha acids, hydrogenated iso-alpha acids, hulupones and combinations thereof, instead of 100-1,500 mg/L as required by the claim (Algazzali on page 37 – first paragraph teaches teaches: “The range of hop acid concentration levels were purposefully chosen to cover a range of sensory bitterness of just above detection to a strong bitter sensation, hence an iso-α-acid range of 6 to 30 mg/L was selected. The humulinone and hulupone concentration range of 8 to 40 mg/L was chosen based on bench trials to achieve a similar sensory bitterness range of iso-α-acids.”; therefore, Algazzali teaches the combination of hop acids range of 14 to 70 mg/L, as cited and incorporated above in the rejection of claim 1, instead of 100-1,500 mg/L as required by the claim 12)
Regarding the limitation “wherein the alcoholic liquid contains 100-1,500 mg/L of hop acids selected from the group consisting of iso-alpha acids, hydrogenated iso-alpha acids, hulupones and combinations thereof” as required by the claim,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hop acids concentration of Algazzali from 14-70 mg/L to 100-1,500 mg/L as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see the Specification of the Instant Application on page 18 lines 25-27 indicating “in a preferred embodiment, the alcoholic liquid comprises 100-1,500 mg/L, most preferably 200-1,000 mg/L hop acids selected from iso-alpha acids, hydrogenated alpha-acids, hulupones and combinations thereof.”; however, applicant does not provide criticality why range 100-1,500 mg/L of hop acids is better than other ranges of hop acids, and applicant does not provide any achievement by having the range 100-1,500 mg/L of hop acids) and since it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 13, Schuh discloses a device (apparatus 20, Schuh Fig.4) for preparing and dispensing reconstituted beer (Schuh Abstract), comprising:
(a) a first vessel (first compartment 12, Schuh Fig.4) containing a liquid concentrate (Schuh Par.0026 discloses: “a first compartment 12 operable to house a beverage concentrate”, Schuh Par.0027 discloses: “the beverage concentrate could be in the form of a semi-liquid or gel. Also preferably, the concentrate is an alcohol-free concentrate of beer, wine, liquor or a mixed drink.”) having an ethanol content of 0-1 % ABV for preparing a beer (since the claim requires ethanol content of 0-1 % ABV for preparing a beer; thus, 0% ABV of ethanol content is also within the claimed range; in this case, Schuh Par.0027 discloses: “the concentrate is an alcohol-free concentrate of beer, wine, liquor or a mixed drink.”, and Schuh Par.0002 discloses: “The beer concentrate can be mixed with water, carbon dioxide and optionally alcohol to form a beer beverage.”; therefore, Schuh discloses 0% ABV of ethanol content for preparing a beer, which falls inside of the claimed range);
(b) a second vessel (second compartment 14, Schuh Fig.4) containing an alcoholic liquid (Schuh Par.0026 discloses: “second compartment 14 operable to house ethanol”, and Schuh Par.0060 discloses: “the alcohol concentrate contained in the second compartment 14, 14′ of the disposable beverage pod 10 is ethanol, which is in liquid form. The alcohol concentrate is included in the second compartment 14 in amount sufficient to form a single serving beverage having an alcohol content ranging from about 0.1% alcohol by volume to about 80% alcohol by volume.”; therefore, Schuh discloses the second compartment 14 containing alcoholic liquid),
(c) a source of water (water reservoir 26, Schuh Fig.4), and a source of pressurized carbon dioxide (pressurized gas canister 28, Schuh Fig.4) (Schuh Par.0069 discloses: “The pressurized gas canister 28 preferably houses carbon dioxide”);
(d) a reconstitution unit (mixing unit 34, Schuh Fig.4) (it is noted that the “reconstitution unit” is being interpreted as “mixer” – see the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation section above for the interpretation of the reconstitution unit); and
(e) a dispensing tap (“outlet”, Schuh Par.0070) (see the 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejection section above for the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections for the claim limitation “dispensing tap”. In this case, since the Instant Application defines the item 50 as shown in Fig.1 is dispensing tap, the item 50 is the outlet for dispensing the reconstituted beer; therefore, the dispensing tap herein is interpreted as the outlet of Schuh) for dispensing the reconstituted beer (Schuh Par.0070 discloses: “ The mixing unit 34 can be housed in the housing 24 and can be operable to receive water, pressurized gas, beverage concentrate and alcohol concentrate prior to dispensing the beverage via the outlet”),
wherein the device (apparatus 20, Schuh Fig.4) is operable
(i) to form a reconstituted beer comprising water from the source of water (water reservoir 26, Schuh Fig.4), carbon dioxide from the source of pressurized carbon dioxide (pressurized gas canister 28, Schuh Fig.4) (Schuh Par.0069 discloses: “The pressurized gas canister 28 preferably houses carbon dioxide”), liquid concentrate from the first vessel (first compartment 12, Schuh Fig.4) and alcoholic liquid from the second vessel (second compartment 14, Schuh Fig.4), in the reconstitution unit (mixing unit 34, Schuh Fig.4) (Schuh Par.0070 discloses: “the apparatus 20 can include a mixing unit 34, which can include a mixing chamber (not shown). The mixing unit 34 can be housed in the housing 24 and can be operable to receive water, pressurized gas, beverage concentrate and alcohol concentrate prior to dispensing the beverage via the outlet”) and
(ii) to dispense the reconstituted beer from the outlet (“outlet”, Schuh Par.0070) (Schuh Par.0070 discloses: “dispensing the beverage via the outlet”).
Schuh does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the liquid concentrate is a liquid beer concentrate obtained by removing water from an alcohol-free beer having an ethanol content of less than 0.5%ABV by membrane separation and/or freeze concentration;
12-100 wt.% ethanol and 0-88 wt.% water, wherein ethanol and water together constitute 80-100 wt.% of the alcoholic liquid;
50-2,000 mg/L of hop acids selected from the group consisting of iso-alpha acids, hydrogenated iso-alpha acids, hulupones and combinations thereof;
a source of carbonated water, and form a reconstituted beer comprising carbonated water from the source of carbonated water; and
the reconstitution unit comprising a static mixer;
Andre teaches preparing beer concentrate (Andre Title & Abstract), comprising:
wherein the liquid concentrate is a liquid beer concentrate obtained by removing water from an alcohol-free beer having an ethanol content of less than 0.5% ABV by membrane separation and/or freeze concentration (Andre teaches the liquid concentrate is a liquid beer concentrate obtained by removing water from an alcohol-free beer having an ethanol content of less than 0.5% ABV by membrane separation and/or freeze concentration because Andre Par.0004 teaches: “Methods for producing beer concentrates and then rehydrating them into final beverages are known in the art. Various methods for concentrating alcoholic beverages that are known in the brewing industry include such processes as freeze-drying, reverse osmosis, and filtration. All of these methods start with a substantially finished beer and then remove the water.”, and Par.0031 teaches: “After the nanofiltration step, the highly concentrated retentate is collected while the aqueous permeate is fed to the second concentration step b) in order to selectively retrieve ethanol and volatile flavour components, said step either comprising freeze concentration, reverse osmosis or freeze concentration, and/or combination thereof.”; it is noted that Andre title teaches: “PROCESS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF A LOW ALCOHOL OR NON-ALCOHOLIC BEER OR CIDER CONCENTRATE”, and Andre Par.0015 teaches: “whereas "non-alcoholic beer" is defined as a beer having an alcohol content of less than 0,05%ABV”; therefore, Andre teaches the liquid concentrate is a liquid beer concentrate obtained by removing water from an alcohol-free beer having an ethanol content of less than 0.5% ABV by membrane separation and/or freeze concentration)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schuh, by adding the teaching of the liquid concentrate is a liquid beer concentrate obtained by removing water from an alcohol-free beer having an ethanol content of less than 0.5% ABV by membrane separation and/or freeze concentration, as taught by Andre, in order to reduce weight and volume which allows to save on storage and transportation costs, in addition to also often having favourable effect on improving shelf life of a product, as recognized by Andre [Andre, Par.0002].
Schuh in view of Andre does not teach:
12-100 wt.% ethanol and 0-88 wt.% water, wherein ethanol and water together constitute 80-100 wt.% of the alcoholic liquid;
50-2,000 mg/L of hop acids selected from the group consisting of iso-alpha acids, hydrogenated iso-alpha acids, hulupones and combinations thereof; and
a source of carbonated water, and form a reconstituted beer comprising carbonated water from the source of carbonated water; and
the reconstitution unit comprising a static mixer;
McGovern teaches alcoholic beverage, such as beer, wine, and the like:
alcoholic liquid comprising 12-100 wt.% ethanol and 0-88 wt.% water (McGovern Par.0020 teaches: “a mixture that is 60 wt % water and 40 wt % ethanol”, therefore, McGovern teaches wt.% ethanol and wt.% water are within the claimed ranges), wherein ethanol and water together constitute 80-100 wt.% of the alcoholic liquid (McGovern Par.0020 teaches: “a mixture that is 60 wt % water and 40 wt % ethanol”; therefore, McGovern teaches ethanol and water together constitute 100 wt.% of the alcoholic liquid, which is within the claimed range);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Schuh concentration of alcoholic liquid (see the Schuh concentration of alcoholic liquid in the second compartment 14 in Schuh Par.0060) with the McGovern concentration of alcoholic liquid (see the McGovern concentration of alcoholic liquid comprising 40 wt.% ethanol and 60 wt.% water, wherein ethanol and water together constitute 100 wt.% of the alcoholic liquid in McGovern Par.0020), because the substitution of one known element for another with no change in their respective functions, and the modification would yield a predictable result of providing alcoholic liquid to make beverage. MPEP 2143 I (B).
Schuh in view of Andre and McGovern does not explicitly teach:
50-2,000 mg/L of hop acids selected from the group consisting of iso-alpha acids, hydrogenated iso-alpha acids, hulupones and combinations thereof; and
a source of carbonated water, and form a reconstituted beer comprising carbonated water from the source of carbonated water; and
the reconstitution unit comprising a static mixer;
Algazzali teaches hop acids during the production of beer (Algazzali on pages 1-4):
50-2,000 mg/L of hop acids selected from iso-alpha acids, hydrogenated iso-alpha acids, hulupones and combinations thereof (Algazzali on page 37 – first paragraph teaches: “The range of hop acid concentration levels were purposefully chosen to cover a range of sensory bitterness of just above detection to a strong bitter sensation, hence an iso-α-acid range of 6 to 30 mg/L was selected. The humulinone and hulupone concentration range of 8 to 40 mg/L was chosen based on bench trials to achieve a similar sensory bitterness range of iso-α-acids.”; therefore, Algazzali teaches the combination of hop acids range of 14 to 70 mg/L, which overlaps the claimed range of 50-2,000 mg/L)
The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lay inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the reference shows the combination of hop acids range of 14 to 70 mg/L overlaps the claimed range of 50-2,000 mg/L; therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schuh in view of Andre and McGovern, by adding the teaching of hop acids concentration comprising iso-α-acid range of 6 to 30 mg/L and humulinone and hulupone concentration range of 8 to 40 mg/L, as taught by Algazzali, in order to achieve desired taste and bitterness of beer since the impact of these hop acids on the flavor and bitterness of the beer is substantial, as recognized by Algazzali (Algazzali on page 10 – first paragraph, and on page 48 – lines 1-10).
Schuh in view of Andre, McGovern and Algazzali does not teach further comprising:
a source of carbonated water, and form a reconstituted beer comprising carbonated water from the source of carbonated water; and
the reconstitution unit comprising a static mixer
Adam teaches a device for preparing and dispensing reconstituted beer (Adam Abstract), comprising:
a source of carbonated water (“source of carbonated water”, Adam Par.0126) (Adam Par.0126 teaches: “As such it for example possible to load the device with a pod or capsule containing a concentrated beer and coupling the device with a source of carbonated water”), and form a reconstituted beer comprising carbonated water from the source of carbonated water (“source of carbonated water”, Adam Par.0126) (Adam Par.0035 discloses: “It follows, that as used herein the terms “reconstituted beer” and “reconstituted fermented malt based beverage” are to be understood as beverages composition-wise substantially identical to beer but obtained by addition of the solvent, i.e. water or carbonated water, to a previously prepared beer concentrate.”); and
the reconstitution unit comprising a static mixer (Adam Par.0111 teaches: “The mixing chamber can comprise moving element to dynamically mix the components or, alternatively, it may be a static mixer or simply a sharp curving portion in the downstream end of the dispensing tubing system.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schuh in view of Andre, McGovern and Algazzali, by adding source of carbonated water to form a reconstituted beer comprising carbonated water from the source of carbonated water, and making the reconstitution unit comprising static mixer, as taught by Adam, in order to force carbonation to restore the sparkling quality lost during concentration; thus, recreate the carbonation, aroma, and mouthfeel of a produced beer at the point of consumption; thereby enhancing flavor and aroma delivery. Additionally, the static mixer improves mixing efficiency, thereby producing a more homogeneous mixture. The modification would improve mixing of different viscosities or compositions, improve uniformity of the beverage composition, and enhance consistency of flavor.
Regarding claim 17, Schuh in view of Andre, McGovern, Algazzali and Adam teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 13, Algazzali also teaches:
wherein the liquid concentrate contains 0-100 mg/L hop acids selected from the group consisting of iso-alpha acids, hydrogenated iso-alpha acids, hulupones and combinations thereof (Algazzali on page 37 – first paragraph teaches teaches: “The range of hop acid concentration levels were purposefully chosen to cover a range of sensory bitterness of just above detection to a strong bitter sensation, hence an iso-α-acid range of 6 to 30 mg/L was selected. The humulinone and hulupone concentration range of 8 to 40 mg/L was chosen based on bench trials to achieve a similar sensory bitterness range of iso-α-acids.”; therefore, Algazzali teaches the combination of hop acids range of 14 to 70 mg/L, which is within the claimed range of 0-100 mg/L)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schuh in view of Andre, McGovern, Algazzali and Adam, by adding the teaching of the liquid concentrate contains 14 to 70 mg/L hop acids selected from iso-alpha acids, hydrogenated iso-alpha acids, hulupones and combinations thereof, as taught by Algazzali, in order to achieve desired taste and bitterness of beer since the impact of these hop acids on the flavor and bitterness of the beer is substantial, as recognized by Algazzali (Algazzali on page 10 – first paragraph, and on page 48 – lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 19, Schuh in view of Andre, McGovern, Algazzali and Adam teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 13, Algazzali also teaches:
wherein the alcoholic liquid contains 14 to 70 mg/L of hop acids selected from the group consisting of iso-alpha acids, hydrogenated iso-alpha acids, hulupones and combinations thereof, instead of 100-1,500 mg/L as required by the claim (Algazzali on page 37 – first paragraph teaches teaches: “The range of hop acid concentration levels were purposefully chosen to cover a range of sensory bitterness of just above detection to a strong bitter sensation, hence an iso-α-acid range of 6 to 30 mg/L was selected. The humulinone and hulupone concentration range of 8 to 40 mg/L was chosen based on bench trials to achieve a similar sensory bitterness range of iso-α-acids.”; therefore, Algazzali teaches the combination of hop acids range of 14 to 70 mg/L, as cited and incorporated above in the rejection of claim 13, instead of 100-1,500 mg/L as required by the claim 12)
Regarding the limitation “wherein the alcoholic liquid contains 100-1,500 mg/L of hop acids selected from the group consisting of iso-alpha acids, hydrogenated iso-alpha acids, hulupones and combinations thereof” as required by the claim,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hop acids concentration of Algazzali from 14-70 mg/L to 100-1,500 mg/L as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see the Specification of the Instant Application on page 18 lines 25-27 indicating “in a preferred embodiment, the alcoholic liquid comprises 100-1,500 mg/L, most preferably 200-1,000 mg/L hop acids selected from iso-alpha acids, hydrogenated alpha-acids, hulupones and combinations thereof.”; however, applicant does not provide criticality why range 100-1,500 mg/L of hop acids is better than other ranges of hop acids, and applicant does not provide any achievement by having the range 100-1,500 mg/L of hop acids) and since it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuh et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0138232 A1, previously cited) in view of Andre et al. (WO 2018100042 A1, newly cited), McGovern et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0136578 A1, previously cited), Algazzali (NPL, “The Bitterness Intensity of Oxidized Hop Acids: Humulinones and Hulupones”, presented on 08/08/2014, previously cited), Adam et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0106661 A1, newly cited), and further in view of Wood et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0291062 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 3, Schuh in view of Andre, McGovern, Algazzali and Adam teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, and also teaches:
wherein the dispensing tap (Schuh outlet in Schuh Par.0070) is in fluid communication with and located downstream of the reconstitution unit (mixing unit 34, Schuh Fig.4) (Schuh Par.0070 discloses: “The mixing unit 34 can be housed in the housing 24 and can be operable to receive water, pressurized gas, beverage concentrate and alcohol concentrate prior to dispensing the beverage via the outlet”)
Schuh in view of Andre, McGovern, Algazzali and Adam does not explicitly teach further comprising:
a carbonator that is in fluid communication with and located downstream of the source of water and the source of pressurized carbon dioxide; and
wherein the first vessel and the second vessel are in fluid communication with and located downstream of the carbonator
Wood teaches a device (100, Wood Figs.1-2) for preparing and dispensing reconstituted beer (Wood Par.0026), comprising:
a carbonator (carbonator 210, Wood Fig.2 & Par.0029) that is in fluid communication with and located downstream of the source of water (water reservoir 202, Wood Fig.2) (Wood Par.0029 teaches: “the reservoir 202 can be configured to hold a maximum predetermined volume of water therein.”) and the source of pressurized carbon dioxide (carbon dioxide source 204 is pressurized carbon dioxide, Wood Fig.2 & Par.0032) (Wood Par.0032 teaches: “The carbonation gas inlet 216 is shown fluidly or gaseously coupled to the carbon dioxide source 204 and configured to selectively release pressurized carbon dioxide from the carbon dioxide source 204 into the sealed container 212.”) (since the water reservoir 202 configured to provide water to the carbonator 210, and the pressurized carbon dioxide source 204 configured to provide pressurized carbon dioxide to the carbonator 210, thus, the water flows from the water reservoir 202 to the carbonator 210 and the pressurized carbon dioxide gas flows the pressurized carbon dioxide source 204 to the carbonator 210; therefore, the carbonator 210 is in fluid communication with and located downstream of the water reservoir 202 and the pressurized carbon dioxide source 204); and
wherein the first vessel and the second vessel (it is noted that the primary reference Schuh already discloses the beverage pod comprising the first vessel and the second vessel, specifically, Schuh discloses the beverage pod 10 comprising first compartment 12 and the second compartment 14 as shown in Schuh Fig.4, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1; in this case, the flavoring dispensing assembly 222 of Wood [Wood Fig.2] is equivalent to the beverage pod 10 of Schuh [Schuh Fig.4]) are in fluid communication with and located downstream of the carbonator (carbonator 210, Wood Fig.2 & Par.0029) (Wood Fig.2 shows the flavoring dispensing assembly 222 is located downstream of the carbonator 210; additionally, Wood Par.0035 teaches: “the flavoring dispensing assembly 222 is configured to open the flavoring material from the single-use package of the flavoring material, and pass the flavoring material to the dispensing assembly 220 for mixing and/or dispensing of the flavoring material with the liquid from the carbonator 210”, thus, the flavoring dispensing assembly 222 is in fluid communication with the carbonator 210; therefore, by adding the Wood carbonator 210 to the Schuh in view of Andre, McGovern, Algazzali and Adam apparatus, in combination, Schuh in view of Andre, McGovern, Algazzali, Adam and Wood teaches the first vessel and the second vessel are in fluid communication with and located downstream of the carbonation unit)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schuh in view of Andre, McGovern, Algazzali and Adam, by adding the carbonator and making the carbonator in fluid communication with and located downstream of the source of water and the source of pressurized carbon dioxide, and wherein the first vessel and the second vessel are in fluid communication with and located downstream of the carbonation unit, as taught by Wood, in order to hold a predetermined amount of liquid and gas inside of the carbonation unit until it reaches desired internal pressure prior dispensing to the beverage concentrate in order to achieve the desired carbonation level of the beverage, as recognized by Wood [Wood, Par.0007].
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuh et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0138232 A1, previously cited) in view of Andre et al. (WO 2018100042 A1, newly cited), McGovern et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0136578 A1, previously cited), Algazzali (NPL, “The Bitterness Intensity of Oxidized Hop Acids: Humulinones and Hulupones”, presented on 08/08/2014, previously cited), Adam et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0106661 A1, newly cited), and further in view of Aerts et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0254063 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 5, Schuh in view of Andre, McGovern, Algazzali and Adam teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein the liquid concentrate has a free amino nitrogen (FAN) content in a range of 60-1,000 mg/L.
Aerts teaches method for brewing beer (Aerts Abstract):
wherein the liquid concentrate has a free amino nitrogen (FAN) content in a range of 60-1,000 mg/L (Aerts Table 16 on page 20 teaches the free amino nitrogen (FAN) content of the beer A1 is 202.1 mg/L for pitching wort and 138.3 mg/L for final beer, which is within the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schuh in view of Andre, McGovern, Algazzali and Adam, by adding the teaching of the free amino nitrogen (FAN) content of 202.1 mg/L for pitching wort and 138.3 mg/L for final beer, as taught by Aerts, in order to enhance the fermentation, flavor, and overall beer quality because sufficient free amino nitrogen (FAN) levels are essential for healthy and complete fermentation; furthermore, free amino nitrogen (FAN) levels also influence fermentation speed and completeness, which can affect the beer’s overall stability and shelf life.
Regarding claim 14, Schuh in view of Andre, McGovern, Algazzali and Adam teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 13, but does not teach:
wherein the liquid concentrate has a free amino nitrogen (FAN) content in the range of 60-1,000 mg/L.
Aerts teaches method for brewing beer (Aerts Abstract):
wherein the liquid concentrate has a free amino nitrogen (FAN) content in the range of 60-1,000 mg/L (Aerts Table 16 on page 20 teaches the free amino nitrogen (FAN) content of the beer A1 is 202.1 mg/L for pitching wort and 138.3 mg/L for final beer, which is within the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schuh in view of Andre, McGovern, Algazzali and Adam, by adding the teaching of the free amino nitrogen (FAN) content of 202.1 mg/L for pitching wort and 138.3 mg/L for final beer, as taught by Aerts, in order to enhance the fermentation, flavor, and overall beer quality because sufficient free amino nitrogen (FAN) levels are essential for healthy and complete fermentation; furthermore, free amino nitrogen (FAN) levels also influence fermentation speed and completeness, which can affect the beer’s overall stability and shelf life.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuh et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0138232 A1, previously cited) in view of Andre et al. (WO 2018100042 A1, newly cited), McGovern et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0136578 A1, previously cited), Algazzali (NPL, “The Bitterness Intensity of Oxidized Hop Acids: Humulinones and Hulupones”, presented on 08/08/2014, previously cited), Adam et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0106661 A1, newly cited), and further in view of Brouwer et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0040342 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 6, Schuh in view of Andre, McGovern, Algazzali and Adam teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein the liquid concentrate contains 250-3,000 µg/L of riboflavin.
Brouwer teaches ingredient in beer (Brouwer Pars.0001-0002):
wherein the liquid concentrate contains 250-3,000 µg/L of riboflavin (Brouwer Par.0048 teaches: “the riboflavin content is in the range of 80 to 2,000 μg/L”, therefore, Brouwer teaches the range of 80 to 2,000 μg/L, which overlaps the claimed range of 250-3,000 µg/L).
The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lay inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the reference shows the riboflavin content is in the range of 80 to 2,000 μg/L overlaps the claimed range of 250-3,000 µg/L; therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schuh in view of Andre, McGovern, Algazzali and Adam, by adding the teaching of the riboflavin content is in the range of 80 to 2,000 μg/L, as taught by Brouwer, in order to achieve a light-stable beer because riboflavin plays an important role in the light-induced formation of 3-MBT in beer, as recognized by Brouwer [Brouwer, Par.0047]; thus, managing riboflavin levels is essential for maintaining flavor stability, particularly in beers packaged in clear bottles and exposed to light.
Regarding claim 15, Schuh in view of Andre, McGovern, Algazzali and Adam teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 13, but does not teach:
wherein the liquid concentrate contains 250-3,000 µg/L of riboflavin.
Brouwer teaches ingredient in beer (Brouwer Pars.0001-0002):
wherein the liquid concentrate contains 250-3,000 µg/L of riboflavin (Brouwer Par.0048 teaches: “the riboflavin content is in the range of 80 to 2,000 μg/L”, therefore, Brouwer teaches the range of 80 to 2,000 μg/L, which overlaps the claimed range of 250-3,000 µg/L).
The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lay inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the reference shows the riboflavin content is in the range of 80 to 2,000 μg/L overlaps the claimed range of 250-3,000 µg/L; therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schuh in view of Andre, McGovern, Algazzali and Adam, by adding the teaching of the riboflavin content is in the range of 80 to 2,000 μg/L, as taught by Brouwer, in order to achieve a light-stable beer because riboflavin plays an important role in the light-induced formation of 3-MBT in beer, as recognized by Brouwer [Brouwer, Par.0047]; thus, managing riboflavin levels is essential for maintaining flavor stability, particularly in beers packaged in clear bottles and exposed to light.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuh et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0138232 A1, previously cited) in view of Andre et al. (WO 2018100042 A1, newly cited), McGovern et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0136578 A1, previously cited), Algazzali (NPL, “The Bitterness Intensity of Oxidized Hop Acids: Humulinones and Hulupones”, presented on 08/08/2014, previously cited), Adam et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0106661 A1, newly cited), and further in view of Aso (NPL, “STUDIES ON BEER”, Pub. 1961, previously cited).
Regarding claim 7, Schuh in view of Andre, McGovern, Algazzali and Adam teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein the liquid concentrate contains 10-100 g/L of maltotetraose.
Aso teaches the sugar composition of beers (Aso Abstract):
wherein the liquid concentrate contains 10-100 g/L of maltotetraose (Aso Table 5 on page 267 teaches the maltotetraose varies in beers from 2.30 g/100ml to 11.12 g/100ml, which equals to 23.0 g/L to 111.2 g/L, which overlaps the claimed range).
The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lay inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the reference shows the maltotetraose varies in beers from 23.0 g/L to 111.2 g/L, which overlaps the claimed range of 10-100 g/L; therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schuh in view of Andre, McGovern, Algazzali and Adam, by adding the teaching of the maltotetraose content is in the range of 23.0 g/L to 111.2 g/L, as taught by Aso, in order to achieve acceptable levels for commercial beers.
Regarding claim 16, Schuh in view of Andre, McGovern, Algazzali and Adam teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 13, but does not teach:
wherein the liquid concentrate contains 10-100 g/L of maltotetraose.
Aso teaches the sugar composition of beers (Aso Abstract):
wherein the liquid concentrate contains 10-100 g/L of maltotetraose (Aso Table 5 on page 267 teaches the maltotetraose varies in beers from 2.30 g/100 ml to 11.12 g/100ml, which equals to 23.0 g/L to 111.2 g/L, which overlaps the claimed range).
The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lay inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the reference shows the maltotetraose varies in beers from 23.0 g/L to 111.2 g/L, which overlaps the claimed range of 10-100 g/L; therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schuh in view of Andre, McGovern, Algazzali and Adam, by adding the teaching of the maltotetraose content is in the range of 23.0 g/L to 111.2 g/L, as taught by Aso, in order to achieve acceptable levels for commercial beers.
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuh et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0138232 A1, previously cited) in view of Andre et al. (WO 2018100042 A1, newly cited), McGovern et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0136578 A1, previously cited), Algazzali (NPL, “The Bitterness Intensity of Oxidized Hop Acids: Humulinones and Hulupones”, presented on 08/08/2014, previously cited), Adam et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0106661 A1, newly cited), and further in view of Russo et al. (NPL, “Investigation of Osmotic Distillation Technique for Beer Dealcoholization”, Pub. 2013, previously cited).
Regarding claim 11, Schuh in view of Andre, McGovern, Algazzali and Adam teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein the alcoholic liquid comprises a distillate obtained by distillative de-alcoholisation of an alcohol-containing beer.
Russo teaches osmotic distillation technique for beer de-alcoholization (Russo Abstract):
wherein the alcoholic liquid comprises a distillate obtained by distillative de-alcoholisation of an alcohol-containing beer (Russo Conclusions section on age 1740 teaches ethanol obtained from osmotic distillation in the dealcoholization of beer can be used as a potential blending stock in the manufacture of alcoholic beverages).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schuh in view of Andre, McGovern, Algazzali and Adam, by adding the teaching of the alcoholic liquid comprises a distillate obtained by distillative de-alcoholisation of an alcohol-containing beer, as taught by Russo, in order to use ethanol recovered from an osmotic distillation technique for beer dealcoholization because the ethanol can be used a potential blending stock in the manufacture of alcoholic beverages, as recognized by Russo [Russo, Conclusions].
Regarding claim 18, Schuh in view of Andre, McGovern, Algazzali and Adam teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 13, but does not teach:
wherein the alcoholic liquid comprises a distillate obtained by distillative de-alcoholisation of an alcohol-containing beer.
Russo teaches osmotic distillation technique for beer de-alcoholization (Russo Abstract):
wherein the alcoholic liquid comprises a distillate obtained by distillative de-alcoholisation of an alcohol-containing beer (Russo Conclusions section on age 1740 teaches ethanol obtained from osmotic distillation in the dealcoholization of beer can be used as a potential blending stock in the manufacture of alcoholic beverages).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schuh in view of Andre, McGovern, Algazzali and Adam, by adding the teaching of the alcoholic liquid comprises a distillate obtained by distillative de-alcoholisation of an alcohol-containing beer, as taught by Russo, in order to use ethanol recovered from an osmotic distillation technique for beer dealcoholization because the ethanol can be used a potential blending stock in the manufacture of alcoholic beverages, as recognized by Russo [Russo, Conclusions].
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Pintz (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0216786 A1) discloses an arrangement for brewing homemade beer per serving, which comprises an industrial stage of an industrial arrangement performing pre-fabrication and a domestic stage for home use performing fermentation-free brewing of beer along with preparation for consumption.
Kirschner et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,233,824 B2) discloses a method of making a beverage including a gas in a beverage making includes pressurizing a gas storage tank arranged to store a gas, supplying a beverage diluent liquid into a dissolver, and dissolving, by way of the dissolver, portion of the gas into the beverage diluent liquid at a minimum dissolver gas volumes level.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
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, STEVEN CRABB can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 04/18/2026
Prosecution Insights