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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description: 210 and 705. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description: 706. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Schutter (US 2018/0112161 A1), cited in applicant’s IDS filed 08/03/2023, in view of Colby (“Hard Seltzer Production Methods”).
Regarding claim 1, De Schutter teaches a method of producing a beverage having an increased real degree of fermentation (RDF) (aromatic beverage made from fermented beverage Par. 0030; sugar as an unfilterable compound that cannot pass through the nanofiltration membrane Par. 0023). As sugars are removed while producing the permeate that is used to make the product, there are less fermentable components (sugars) and therefore the RDF would reasonably be higher.
the method comprising: (1) providing a base beverage (fermented beverage Par. 0031)
(2) subjecting the base beverage or a fraction thereof to a reverse osmosis stage comprising one or more reverse osmosis units, thereby producing a reverse osmosis permeate (subject filtered permeate to reverse osmosis step Par. 0032; separation into two fractions (permeate and retinate) step 3 Par. 0035 Fig. 1)
and (3) preparing a beverage comprising the reverse osmosis permeate (base liquid product of reverse osmosis is mixed with exogenous aromas to make aromatic beverage Par. 0035)
wherein the beverage has an RDF of at least about 94 and an alcohol content of at least about 2% ABV (sugar as an unfilterable compound that cannot pass through the nanofiltration membrane Par. 0023; at least 2% ABV Par. 0035). As the sugars cannot pass through the membrane used, the final product can be assumed to have effectively no sugars and therefore an RDF of about 100%.
De Schutter does not teach a hard seltzer beverage.
Colby, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a hard seltzer beverage (hard seltzer Pg. 1)
and a hard seltzer base beverage (fermented sugar wash Pg. 2 “Clean Up“ section Par. 1).
As De Schutter is not specific in regards to the aromatic beverage produced, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to produce hard seltzer as it is known to be profitable and is projected to have growing sales (Colby Pg. 1 Par. 1). Further, this is selecting a known process based on its suitability for its intended use, and supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 2, De Schutter further teaches the RDF of the reverse osmosis permeate is greater than the RDF of the hard seltzer base beverage (sugar as an unfilterable compound that cannot pass through the nanofiltration membrane Par. 0023; nanofiltration retains particles larger than 180 Dalton, reverse osmosis retains particles larger than 50 Dalton Par. 0027). As sugars are removed from the permeate with nanofiltration, they would also be removed with reverse osmosis because it retains even smaller particles. There are less fermentable components (sugars) and therefore the RDF would reasonably be higher.
Regarding claim 3, De Schutter teaches the RDF of the reverse osmosis permeate is increased by removal of essentially all sugar (sugar as an unfilterable compound that cannot pass through the nanofiltration membrane Par. 0023; nanofiltration retains particles larger than 180 Dalton, reverse osmosis retains particles larger than 50 Dalton Par. 0027). As the sugars cannot pass through the membrane used, the final product can be assumed to have effectively no sugars and therefore an RDF of about 100%.
However, De Schutter does not teach RDF of the beverage fraction entering the reverse osmosis stage, therefore it does not teach the RDF of the reverse osmosis permeate is increased by at least about 0. 1, at least about 0.2, at least about 0.3, at least about 0.4, at least about 0.5, at least about 0.6, at least about 0.7, at least about 0.8, at least about 0.9, or at least about 1.0 relative to the RDF of the beverage fraction entering the reverse osmosis stage.
Colby teaches a starting sugar wash with 8.0-10 °Brix (Pg. 1 “The Sugar Wash Section Par. 3) and finishing fermentation at -1.8 to -2.0 °Brix (Pg. 2 “Boiling, Cooling, Yeast, and Fermentation” Section Par. 3). Using the equation to calculate specific gravity from Brix taught by De Schutter (Plato and Brix can be used virtually interchangeably, relationship between Plato and specific gravity Par. 0024), Colby’s starting sugar wash would have a starting specific gravity of 1.032-1.040 and the finished fermentation product would have a specific gravity of 0.993-0.992. Using these values to calculate RDF according to the relationship described in De Shutter (RDF given as a fraction of original gravity transformed Par. 0025), the fermented product of Colby would have an RDF of 95.38-96.22%. With this in mind, the fermented seltzer of Colby when applied to the reverse osmosis method of De Schutter, which results in an RDF of 100%, would therefore teach a method in which the RDF of the reverse osmosis permeate is increased by at least about 0. 1, at least about 0.2, at least about 0.3, at least about 0.4, at least about 0.5, at least about 0.6, at least about 0.7, at least about 0.8, at least about 0.9, or at least about 1.0 relative to the RDF of the beverage fraction entering the reverse osmosis stage.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to apply the Brix values of Colby to the method of modified De Schutter. One would have been motivated to make this modification to produce a product which is known to be profitable and a projection to have growing sales (Colby Pg. 1 Par. 1)
Regarding claim 4, De Schutter teaches the RDF of the reverse osmosis permeate is increased by removal of essentially all sugar (sugar as an unfilterable compound that cannot pass through the nanofiltration membrane Par. 0023; nanofiltration retains particles larger than 180 Dalton, reverse osmosis retains particles larger than 50 Dalton Par. 0027). As the sugars cannot pass through the membrane used, the final product can be assumed to have effectively no sugars and therefore an RDF of about 100%.
However, De Schutter does not teach RDF of the beverage fraction entering the reverse osmosis stage, therefore it does not teach the RDF of the reverse osmosis permeate is increased by at least about 1.1, at least about 1.2, at least about 1.3, at least about 1.4, or at least about 1.5 relative to the RDF of the beverage fraction entering the reverse osmosis stage.
Colby teaches a starting sugar wash with 8.0-10 °Brix (Pg. 1 “The Sugar Wash Section Par. 3) and finishing fermentation at -1.8 to -2.0 °Brix (Pg. 2 “Boiling, Cooling, Yeast, and Fermentation” Section Par. 3). Using the equation to calculate specific gravity from Brix taught by De Schutter (Plato and Brix can be used virtually interchangeably, relationship between Plato and specific gravity Par. 0024), Colby’s starting sugar wash would have a starting specific gravity of 1.032-1.040 and the finished fermentation product would have a specific gravity of 0.993-0.992. Using these values to calculate RDF according to the relationship described in De Shutter (RDF given as a fraction of original gravity transformed Par. 0025), the fermented product of Colby would have an RDF of 95.38-96.22%. With this in mind, the fermented seltzer of Colby when applied to the reverse osmosis method of De Schutter, which results in an RDF of 100%, would therefore teach a method in which the RDF of the reverse osmosis permeate is increased by at least about 1.1, at least about 1.2, at least about 1.3, at least about 1.4, or at least about 1.5 relative to the RDF of the beverage fraction entering the reverse osmosis stage.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to apply the Brix values of Colby to the method of modified De Schutter. One would have been motivated to make this modification to produce a product which is known to be profitable and a projection to have growing sales (Colby Pg. 1 Par. 1)
Regarding claim 5, De Schutter teaches wherein the RDF of the reverse osmosis permeate is at least about 94.5, at least about 95, at least about 95.5, at least about 96, at least about 96.5, at least about 97, at least about 97.5, at least about 98, at least about 98.5, at least about 99, or at least about 99.5 (sugar as an unfilterable compound that cannot pass through the nanofiltration membrane Par. 0023). As the sugars cannot pass through the membrane used, the final product can be assumed to have effectively no sugars and therefore an RDF of about 100%.
Regarding claim 6, De Schutter further teaches the reverse osmosis permeate retains 10-250% of the alcohol content of the beverage fraction entering the reverse osmosis stage (beer subjected to concentration (1 in claim 1) has 8-20 ABV Claim 2; reverse osmosis results in base liquid between 2-20% ABV Par. 0014).
Regarding the reverse osmosis permeate retains at least about 50%, at least about 60%, or at least about 70% of the alcohol content of the beverage fraction entering the reverse osmosis stage, De Schutter teaches retention of 10-250% of the alcohol content (Claims 1-2, Par. 0014, seen above). As this range overlaps with the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify De Schutter to have a retention of at least about 50%. It would have been a prima facie case of obviousness to have selected the overlapping portion of the range (i.e. 50-250% retention) from the taught range of 10-250% (as seen above). In re Werthein, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 7, De Schutter further teaches the beverage fraction entering one or more reverse osmosis units has a temperature of at least about 4 °C, at least about 5°C, at least about 6 °C, at least about 7 0C, at least about 8 °C, at least about 9 °C, or at least about 10 °C (reverse osmosis at 0-12 °C Par. 0040).
Regarding claim 8, De Schutter teaches the beverage fraction entering one or more reverse osmosis units has a temperature of from about 4 °C to about 16 °C, or from about 7 °C to about 13 °C. (reverse osmosis at 0-12 °C Par. 0040).
Regarding claim 9, De Schutter further teaches the beverage fraction entering one or more reverse osmosis units has a pressure of least about 4750 kPa, at least about 5500 kPa, at least about 5750 kPa, or at least about 6000 kPa (reverse osmosis at between 21 and 76 bar, up to 150 bar, wherein bar equals 100,000 Pa, therefore 2100 to 15000 kPa Par. 0027).
Regarding claim 10, De Schutter further teaches the beverage fraction entering one or more reverse osmosis units has a pressure of from about 6000 kPa to about 7000 kPa (reverse osmosis at between 21 and 76 bar, wherein bar equals 100,000 Pa, therefore 2100 to 7600 kPa Par. 0027).
Regarding claim 11, De Schutter further teaches the reverse osmosis stage comprises two or more reverse osmosis units (second filtration step first comprises reverse osmosis, then at least one additional treatment comprising distillation, fractionation, or reverse osmosis Par. 0013)
Claims 12-16 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Schutter (US 2018/0112161 A1), cited in applicant’s IDS filed 08/03/2023, in view of Colby (“Hard Seltzer Production Methods”), further in view of Angstmann (US 2018/0216054 A1).
Regarding claim 12, De Schutter teaches a method of producing a beverage having an increased real degree of fermentation (RDF) (aromatic beverage made from fermented beverage Par. 0030; sugar as an unfilterable compound that cannot pass through the nanofiltration membrane Par. 0023; reverse osmosis retains particles with molecular weight above 50 Dalton while nanofiltration retains particles with molecular weight above approximately 180 Dalton Par. 0027). As sugars are removed while producing the permeate that is used to make the product, there are less fermentable components (sugars) and therefore the RDF would reasonably be higher.
the method comprising: (1) providing a base beverage (fermented beverage Par. 0031)
(2) subjecting the base beverage or a fraction thereof to a filtration stage, thereby producing a filtration permeate (subject fermented beverage to a first filtration step Par. 0030)
(2) subjecting the filtration permeate or a fraction thereof to a reverse osmosis stage comprising one or more reverse osmosis units, thereby producing a reverse osmosis permeate (subject filtered permeate to reverse osmosis step Par. 0032; separation into two fractions (permeate and retinate) step 3 Par. 0035 Fig. 1)
and (3) preparing a beverage comprising at least one beverage fraction selected from the group consisting of the filtration permeate and the reverse osmosis permeate (base liquid product of reverse osmosis is mixed with exogenous aromas to make aromatic beverage Par. 0035)
wherein the beverage has an RDF of at least about 94 and an alcohol content of at least about 2% ABV (sugar as an unfilterable compound that cannot pass through the nanofiltration membrane Par. 0023; reverse osmosis retains particles with molecular weight above 50 Dalton while nanofiltration retains particles with molecular weight above approximately 180 Dalton Par. 0027; at least 2% ABV Par. 0035). As the sugars cannot pass through the membrane used, the final product can be assumed to have effectively no sugars and therefore an RDF of about 100%.
De Schutter does not teach a hard seltzer beverage or the filtration is carbon filtration.
Colby teaches a hard seltzer beverage (hard seltzer Pg. 1)
and a hard seltzer base beverage (fermented sugar wash Pg. 2 “Clean Up“ section Par. 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to apply the hard seltzer of Colby to the method of De Schutter. One would have been motivated to make this modification to produce a product which is known to be profitable and a projection to have growing sales (Colby Pg. 1 Par. 1)
Colby does not teach the filtration is carbon filtration.
Angstmann, in the same field of endeavor, teaches carbon filtration (filtering through a carbon filter Par. 0010)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the carbon filtration of Angstmann to the invention of modified De Schutter. As De Scutter teaches that the filtration step can be performed using any techniques known in the art (Par. 0026) and Angstmann teaches carbon filtration of distilled spirits (Par. 0010), the selection of a known process based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 13, De Schutter and Colby do not teach the RDF of the carbon filtration permeate is greater than the RDF of the hard seltzer base beverage.
Angstmann teaches cooling to −20° C to form crystals, then filtering with a 0.1 micron hollow fiber membrane and 0.02 hollow fiber, semi-permeable membrane (Par. 0032). Though Anstmann is silent regarding filtering of sugars, considering sugar sizes range from 50-400 microns (as evidenced by Sympa Tec Section “Grain size distribution or refined sugar and powdered sugar”), one having ordinary skill would expect that at −20° C the sugar particles would at least be as large as average particle size if not larger and would be filtered out with the carbon filtration. Therefore, the carbon filtration permeate would have a lower sugar content and therefore a higher RDF as compared to the hard seltzer base beverage.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the carbon filtration of Angstmann to the invention of modified De Schutter. As De Scutter teaches that the filtration step can be performed using any techniques known in the art (Par. 0026) and Angstmann teaches carbon filtration of distilled spirits (Par. 0010), the selection of a known process based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 14, De Schutter and Colby do not teach wherein the RDF of the carbon filtration permeate is increased by at least about 0.1, at least about 0.2, at least about 0.3, at least about 0.4, at least about 0.5, at least about 0.6, at least about 0.7, at least about 0.8, at least about 0.9, or at least about 1.0 relative to the RDF of the beverage fraction entering the carbon filtration stage.
Though Angstmann teaches an increase in RDF of the carbon permeate, it does not teach enough information to calculate the exact change. Therefore, Angstmann does not teach wherein the RDF of the carbon filtration permeate is increased by at least about 0.1, at least about 0.2, at least about 0.3, at least about 0.4, at least about 0.5, at least about 0.6, at least about 0.7, at least about 0.8, at least about 0.9, or at least about 1.0 relative to the RDF of the beverage fraction entering the carbon filtration stage.
However, since the combination of De Schutter, Colby, and Angstmann teach the same method with the same components as the claimed invention, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect the inventions to have similar RDF in the carbon filtration permeate.
Regarding claim 15, De Schutter and Colby do not teach the RDF of the carbon filtration permeate is at least about 94.5, at least about 95, at least about 95.5, at least about 96, at least about 96.5, at least about 97, at least about 97.5, at least about 98, at least about 98.5, at least about 99, or at least about 99.5.
Though Angstmann teaches an increase in RDF of the carbon permeate, it does not teach enough information to calculate the exact RDF. Therefore, Angstmann does not teach the RDF of the carbon filtration permeate is at least about 94.5, at least about 95, at least about 95.5, at least about 96, at least about 96.5, at least about 97, at least about 97.5, at least about 98, at least about 98.5, at least about 99, or at least about 99.5.
However, since the combination of De Schutter, Colby, and Angstmann teach the same method with the same components as the claimed invention, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect the inventions to have similar RDF in the carbon filtration permeate.
Regarding claim 16, De Schutter and Colby do not teach the beverage fraction entering one or more carbon filtration units has a temperature of less than about 6 °C, less than about 5°C, less than about 4 °C, less than about 3 °C, less than about 2 °C, less than about 1 °C, or less than about 0.5 °C.
Angstmann teaches the beverage fraction entering one or more carbon filtration units has a temperature of less than about 6 °C, less than about 5°C, less than about 4 °C, less than about 3 °C, less than about 2 °C, less than about 1 °C, or less than about 0.5 °C (cooled to -20 °C, carbon filtering repeated plurality of times Par. 0012, 0014). One having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably keep the beverage fraction around the same temperature between repetitions for energy efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the temperature of Angstmann to the invention of modified De Schutter. One would have been motivated to make this modification to crystallize any contaminants to allow for easier removal (Angstmann Par. 0010).
Regarding claim 18, De Schutter and Colby do not teach the carbon filtration permeate retains at least about 80%, at least about 90%, at least about 95%, at least about 98%, or at least about 99% of the alcohol content of the beverage fraction entering the carbon filtration stage.
De Schutter teaches alcohols such as ethanol are small enough to fit through a nanofiltration membrane (Par. 0023), and a nanofiltration membrane has a retention of particles 0.001-0.01 microns and larger (Par. 0027). With this in mind, the membrane of Angstrom, with a pore size of about 0.1 micron (Par. 0029) would be large enough for essentially 100% of the alcohol to be retained in the permeate.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the membrane of Angstmann to the invention of modified De Schutter. One would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce levels of contaminants in the product (Angstmann Par. 0010).
Regarding claim 19, De Schutter and Colby do not teach the beverage fraction entering one or more carbon filtration units has a pressure of at least about 30 kPa, at least about 40 kPa, at least about 50 kPa, at least about 60 kPa, at least about 70 kPa, at least about 80 kPa, at least about 90 kPa, or at least about 100 kPa.
Angstmann teaches the beverage fraction entering one or more carbon filtration units has a pressure of at least about 30 kPa, at least about 40 kPa, at least about 50 kPa, at least about 60 kPa, at least about 70 kPa, at least about 80 kPa, at least about 90 kPa, or at least about 100 kPa (20 psi (138 kPa) Par. 0019).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the pressure of Angstmann to the invention of modified De Schutter. One would have been motivated to make this modification to urge the cooled fluid through the filtration unit (Angstmann Par. 0018).
Regarding claim 20, De Schutter and Colby do not teach the beverage fraction entering one or more carbon filtration units has a pressure of at most about 200 kPa, at most about 180 kPa, at most about 160 kPa, at most about 140 kPa, at most about 130 kPa, at most about 120 kPa, at most about 110 kPa, or at most about 100 kPa.
Angstmann teaches the beverage fraction entering one or more carbon filtration units has a pressure of at most about 200 kPa, at most about 180 kPa, at most about 160 kPa, at most about 140 kPa, at most about 130 kPa, at most about 120 kPa, at most about 110 kPa, or at most about 100 kPa (20 psi (138 kPa) Par. 0019).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the pressure of Angstmann to the invention of modified De Schutter. One would have been motivated to make this modification to urge the cooled fluid through the filtration unit (Angstmann Par. 0018).
Regarding claim 21, De Schutter and Colby do not teach the carbon filtration stage comprises two or more carbon filtration units.
Angstmann teaches the carbon filtration stage comprises two or more carbon filtration units (carbon filtration repeated plurality of times Par. 0014; one or more carbon filters Par. 0026).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the carbon flitration of Angstmann to the invention of modified De Schutter. One would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce levels of contaminants in the product (Angstmann Par. 0010).
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Schutter, Colby, and Angstmann, further in view of Ramsden (US 2005/0064066 A1) and Helmenstine (“Room Temperature Definition”).
Regarding claim 17, modified De Schutter teaches the limitations of claim 12. De Schutter and Colby do not teach the beverage fraction entering one or more carbon filtration units has a temperature of from about 4 °C to about 16 °C, or from about 7 0C to about 13 °C.
Angstmann teaches carbon filtering prior to cooling (Par. 0011), but is silent regarding the temperature of the beverage fraction prior to cooling.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the carbon filtration prior to cooling of Angstmann to the invention of modified De Schutter. One would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce levels of contaminants (Angstmann Par. 0010).
Angstmann does not teach the beverage fraction entering one or more carbon filtration units has a temperature of from about 4 °C to about 16 °C, or from about 7 0C to about 13 °C.
Ramsden, in the same field of endeavor, teaches carbon filtration at room temperature (0052), but is silent regarding the temperature of the room.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the temperature of Ramsden to the invention of modified De Schutter. One would have been motivated to make this modification reduce volatile and yeast-based contaminants Ramsden Par. 0043).
Ramsden does not teach the beverage fraction entering one or more carbon filtration units has a temperature of from about 4 °C to about 16 °C, or from about 7 0C to about 13 °C.
Helmenstine, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a room temperature of 15-25 °C (Pg. 1, third Par. under “Room Temperature Definition” Section).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the temperature of Helmenstine to the invention of modified De Schutter. One would have been motivated to make this modification to have the temperature of the room in a range which is comfortable (Helmenstine Pg. 1, first Par. under “Room Temperature Definition” Section).
Helemenstine does not teach the beverage fraction entering one or more carbon filtration units has a temperature of from about 4 °C to about 16 °C, or from about 7 °C to about 13 °C.
Regarding the beverage fraction entering one or more carbon filtration units has a temperature of from about 4 °C to about 16 °C, or from about 7 °C to about 13 °C, Helemenstine teaches a temperature of 15-25 °C (Pg. 1, third Par. under “Room Temperature Definition” Section, see above). As this range overlaps with the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art to modify Helemenstine to have a temperature of from about 4 °C to about 16 °C, or from about 7 °C to about 13 °C. It would have been prima facie case of obviousness to have selected the overlapping portion of the range (i.e. 15°C to about 16 °C) from the taught temperature of from about 4 °C to about 16 °C, or from about 7 °C to about 13 °C (as seen above). In re Werthein, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL M RODGERS whose telephone number is (571)272-7857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 5712703475. 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.
/A.M.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792