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 .
Status of the Application
Receipt of the Request for Continued Examination (RCE under 37 CFR 1.114) and the Response and Amendment filed 13 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant has overcome the following by virtue of amendment of the claims: (1) the objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1-4, 6-11, and 17-18
Withdrawn claims: 11
Previously canceled claims: 5 and 12
Newly canceled claims: 13-16
Amended claims: 1, 6-7, and 18
New claims: None
Claims currently under consideration: 1-4, 6-10 and 17-18
Currently rejected claims: 1-4, 6-10 and 17-18
Allowed claims: None
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 13 May 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 10, “after the generating” should read, “after the generating ultrasound”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “while degassing the beer due to the residual fermentation while the ultrasound is generated to avoid a pressure buildup within the recipient due to the yeast activity during the generating ultrasound” in lines 18-21. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear what feature the recitation “due to the residual fermentation” is adding to the claim. It is already understood that the beer is undergoing residual fermentation.
Additionally, the recitation “the yeast activity” in this clause lacks antecedent basis.
For purposes of examination, this clause is construed as “degassing the beer while the ultrasound is generated to avoid a pressure buildup within the recipient due to yeast activity during the generating ultrasound”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fearnside et al. (US 2020/0255777 A1) in view of Beer Advocate (ILikeDragonFruit. (2020, July 25). Ultrasonic barrel aging? [Online forum post]. Beer Advocate. https://www.beeradvocate.com/community/threads/ultrasonic-barrel-aging.644081/).
Regarding claim 1:
Claim Interpretation:
The phrase “initial fermentation following brewing” is not defined by the specification and is only implied due to the phrase “residual fermentation”. Therefore, “initial fermentation” is interpreted broadly and includes any amount of fermentation after the onset of fermentation up to a point where fermentation has substantially terminated.
Regarding the term “residual fermentation”, the instant specification at paragraph [0031] provides, “During aging, residual fermentation still occurs as a result of the present yeast cells.” Therefore, a beer containing yeast cells after a period of fermentation is construed to be undergoing “residual fermentation”.
Claim Rejection:
Fearnside teaches a method for accelerating aging of beer in order to enhance one or more flavors that are exhibited by the beer – “the present invention is directed to a method for accelerating aging of a beverage…” ([0046]). The method and system are operable to age beer ([0049]). Flavor, smell, and color compounds are extracted ([0053]).
The method comprising:
receiving in a recipient beer; adding one or more of wood, fruit, chocolate, flowers, hop, coffee, vanilla, herbs and spices to the beer – “…circulating a fluid [i.e., beer] in at least one reaction chamber [i.e., recipient], wherein at least one of the at least one reaction chamber includes a wood load…” ([0046]). Fearnside further discloses, “However, it should be noted that the process and system is operable to…utilize organic substances other than wood, including fruit zest, nuts, spices, vegetables, berries, whole fruit, or seeds.” ([0049]).
the recipient joined to one or more ultrasonic transducers – “FIG. 3A illustrates another embodiment of the AAS [accelerated aging system], wherein the main reservoir 301 serves as a single reaction chamber. In the illustrated embodiment, ultrasonic transducers 1305 are connected to the main reservoir 301 and are operable to sonicate the working fluid and a contained wood load 1307” ([0100], Fig. 3A).
accelerating aging and flavoring of the beer by generating ultrasound that travels into the beer using the one or more ultrasonic transducers in order to flavour the beer by disrupting the one or more of wood, fruit, chocolate, flowers, hop, coffee, vanilla, herbs and spices contained in the beer – “…applying a first ultrasonic energy to the fluid in the at least one reaction chamber…” ([0046]). “The application of ultrasonic energy to the spirit or to a container wall holding the spirit creates pressure waves through the spirit and induces the formation of cavitation bubbles on the wood chips in contact with the liquid.” ([0051]).
thereby imbuing the beer with one or more flavors corresponding to the one or more of wood, fruit, chocolate, flowers, hop, coffee, vanilla, herbs and spices, resulting in a flavored beer – “When the bubbles implode, they collapse into the wood and break down cell walls of the wood, which allows for rapid extraction of compounds.” ([0051]). Flavor, smell, and color compounds are extracted ([0053]). In an embodiment wherein the liquid is beer, the extracted compounds imbue the beer with the flavor, smell, and color compounds extracted from the wood or other additive(s), thereby producing a flavored beer.
carbonizing the flavored beer – The instant specification at paragraph [0054] indicates that “carbonizing” is achieved “through the addition of sugars, by applying pressurized carbon dioxide, etc.”. Fearnside discloses, “Notably, while aeration and oxygenation are disclosed in the present invention, aeration in another embodiment includes the application, infusion, and/or treatment of a working fluid with any gas or combination of gasses and is not limited to an atmospheric mixture of gasses. For example, in one embodiment, the gas is any combination or pure application of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, or any gaseous variations known in the art of beverage production.” ([0070]). As Fearnside discloses that the working fluid (i.e., beer) can be treated with pure carbon dioxide, Fearnside teaches carbonating/carbonizing the flavored beer as claimed. Furthermore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have carbonated the flavored beer because it is common practice that beer is carbonated to enhance the organoleptic properties of the beer for enjoyment by consumers.
Fearnside does not discuss that the beer is beer that has undergone initial fermentation following brewing and is undergoing residual fermentation, containing yeast; degassing the beer while the ultrasound is generated to avoid a pressure buildup within the recipient due to yeast activity during the generating ultrasound; or bottling the flavored beer.
However, Beer Advocate discloses “by using an ultrasonic bath and barrel wood chips, you can allegedly obtain a “barrel-aged” liquid in under an hour!” (p. 1, penultimate ¶). Regarding ultrasonic aging of beer, Beer Advocate further discloses:
I don't see why it wouldn't work, at least assuming the premise is correct. Coming from a homebrewing perspective, it seems simple enough given an ultrasonic device of sufficient size or design. After fermentation, add chips, and purge the O2 with CO2 or simply let the CO2 in suspension drive it off as it comes out of suspenson. Just make sure you stop it before it foams into the blowoff, but even that would sort itself out fairly quickly I would think. After sufficient "aging" simply package as usual leaving the wood chips behind with the yeast etc.
ETA: I'm thinking something like a quick carb device. The beer comes out of the keg, passes through a "aging chamber" where the oak is. at this point you would inject the O2 and ultrasonic treatment, then it would be pumped back into the keg where the O2 could be released into the headspace from the pressure drop.”
(p. 3, bottom, comment by Sixpack595).
The disclosure of leaving behind yeast implies that yeast is present in the “aged” beer, and the aging is conducted after (initial) fermentation on beer undergoing residual fermentation due to the yeast. The disclosure that CO2 comes out of suspension and a blowoff on the vessel indicates degassing the beer and preventing a pressure buildup within the vessel.
Regarding the fermentation state of the beer for the method, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Fearnside with the teachings of Beer Advocate to apply the method for accelerating aging to beer that has undergone initial fermentation following brewing and is undergoing residual fermentation, containing yeast. First, Fearnside teaches that the method and system are operable to age beer ([0049]). Beer Advocate discloses ultrasonic barrel aging of beer by adding wood chips to beer after fermentation and leaving behind the wood chips and yeast when packaging after sufficient “aging” (see supra). Where Fearnside discloses that the method and system are operable to age beer ([0049]), but does not specify the state of the beer to be aged, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to consult Beer Advocate to identify a suitable process stage in beer fermentation/production in which to conduct the accelerated aging. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the claimed invention in doing so because Beer Advocate suggests ultrasonic-aging the beer after fermentation with yeast present, which is beer that has undergone initial fermentation following brewing and is undergoing residual fermentation, containing yeast, as claimed.
Regarding the degassing while ultrasound is generated, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Fearnside with the teachings of Beer Advocate to degas the fermenting beer while the ultrasound is generated to avoid a pressure buildup within the recipient due to the yeast activity during the generating ultrasound as claimed. First, Fearnside teaches that “the AAS maintains constant pressure within the closed environment via one or more pressure and/or gaseous control systems, including an exhaust vent, an inlet, a valve, and/or any other active or passive method or system...” ([0069]). The disclosure of Beer Advocate that CO2 comes out of suspension and a blowoff on the vessel (p. 3, bottom, comment by Sixpack595) indicates degassing the beer and preventing a pressure buildup within the vessel (via blowoff). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated degas the beer undergoing residual fermentation during ultrasonic aging as taught by Beer Advocate to maintain the constant pressure as taught by Fearnside. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Beer Advocate teaches allowing gas to escape during fermentation and ultrasonic treatment, and Fearnside teaches that the AAS has features that allow pressure control, such as an exhaust vent (see supra).
Regarding bottling the flavored beer, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Fearnside to include a step of bottling the flavored beer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it is common practice to bottle beer for distribution and sale to consumers.
Claim 1 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Fearnside and Beer Advocate teach the method as defined in claim 1, wherein the ultrasound is generated at a frequency of 20 kHz - 80 kHz – Fearnside teaches that in the first stage, the sonication process occurs with the wood present ([0059]). Larger cavitation events associated with larger bubbles are preferred at this stage because the larger cavitation events result in extraction of more compounds from the wood, and lower ultrasonic frequencies, including frequencies of between 20 kHz - 80 kHz, produce larger bubbles ([0062]). Therefore, claim 2 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Fearnside and Beer Advocate teach the method as defined in claim 1, wherein the one or more transducers include transducers that are inserted into the recipient and protected with a waterproof barrier – Fearnside discloses, “In a further embodiment, the ultrasonic transducers are in direct contact with a working fluid, wherein one or more ultrasonic transducers are immersed within a fluid contained within a reaction chamber” ([0098]). Since the ultrasonic transducers are immersed in the fluid, common sense dictates that the ultrasonic transducers are protected with a waterproof barrier to prevent damage to the transducers. Claim 3 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 4, Fearnside and Beer Advocate teach the method as defined in claim 1, wherein the one or more transducers include transducers that are joined to an exterior surface of a wall of the recipient, in direct contact with the wall of the recipient – Fearnside teaches, “In yet another embodiment, the transducers are matingly attached to the reaction chamber at opposite sides or ends.” ([0098]). “FIG. 3A illustrates another embodiment of the AAS [accelerated aging system], wherein the main reservoir 301 serves as a single reaction chamber. In the illustrated embodiment, ultrasonic transducers 1305 are connected to the main reservoir 301 and are operable to sonicate the working fluid and a contained wood load 1307” ([0100], Fig. 3A). Claim 4 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Fearnside and Beer Advocate teach the method as defined in claim 1, wherein the wood is added to the beer – Fearnside discloses, “FIG. 1A illustrates a process diagram for an aging process according to one embodiment of the present invention. Specifically, the illustrated process begins with organic material being introduced to the system 123, wherein the organic material is any organic material for flavoring, aroma, color, or other extraction or infusion, including wood, berries, nuts, cinnamon sticks, plants, or other processed or unprocessed food, such as chocolate.” ([0058]). Changes in sequence of adding ingredients (i.e., adding the beer to a recipient containing the wood or adding the wood to a recipient containing the beer) is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(C). Therefore, claim 6 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 7, Fearnside and Beer Advocate teach the method as defined in claim 1, wherein the fruit is added to the beer – Fearnside discloses, “However, it should be noted that the process and system is operable to…utilize organic substances other than wood, including fruit zest, nuts, spices, vegetables, berries, whole fruit, or seeds.” ([0049]). Changes in sequence of adding ingredients (i.e., adding the beer to a recipient containing the fruit or adding the fruit to a recipient containing the beer) is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(C). Therefore, claim 7 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 8, Fearnside and Beer Advocate teach the method as defined in claim 1, further comprising introducing oxygen into the beer while the ultrasound is generated to promote micro-oxidation – Fearnside teaches that oxygen is needed to further develop the compounds in the beverage, and as such teaches that air or oxygen is introduced to the liquid in a way to provide a customized amount of aeration that minimizes flavor loss while still catalyzing and/or providing compounds and elements that drive internal reactions (i.e., micro-oxidation) ([0054]). Fearnside further teaches that an air/gas infusion process occurs at one or more points between or within each of the previous stages ([0058]). The process diagram, Figure 1A, discloses an embodiment wherein the oxygenation occurs during sonication with the wood. Therefore, claim 8 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Fearnside and Beer Advocate teach the method as defined in claim 8, wherein the oxygen is introduced into the beer by disturbing the beer – Fearnside teaches that “aeration occurs through one or more active or passive means, including via paddlewheels, air compressors, pumps, diffusers, stones, turbines, or any other forced, agitation, or ambient introduction method known in the art.” ([0068]). These are all methods of disturbing the beer. Claim 9 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Fearnside and Beer Advocate teach the method as defined in claim 1, further comprising, after the generating ultrasound, filtering the beer to remove solids – “filtration is added before, between, or after any of the aging stages” ([0116]). Additionally, Fearnside discloses, “An organic material is preferably added to the chamber via a removable container 313, such as a solid container and/or a mesh bag any other device or method that restrains the wood while allowing contact with the spirit. In an alternative embodiment, a barrier or a filter is integrated within the reaction chamber 311 and/or the removable container 313 to restrict any organic material from entering other parts of the system” ([0098]). At least the disclosed mesh bag also acts as a filter. Therefore, claim 10 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 17, Fearnside and Beer Advocate teach the method as defined in claim 1, further comprising recirculating the flavoured beer to repeat a fermentation of the flavoured beer following the generating ultrasound, resulting in further fermented and flavoured beer – Fearnside teaches, “In one embodiment, a main reservoir or tank is connected to one or more reaction chambers via an intake hose and an output hose, wherein each stage of the process occurs in the one or more reaction chambers and is returned to the main reservoir. Thus, the AAS is operable to treat smaller batches of a spirit at a time, leading to more efficient and consistent results for large volumes of product.” ([0076]). See also Fig. 3 recirculation loop between 301 and 311. As such, Fearnside teaches that the spirit undergoing accelerated aging (in this case, beer undergoing residual fermentation) is recirculated following the ultrasonic treatment. Where the beer is undergoing residual fermentation, recirculation of the ultrasonic-treated beer to the main reservoir would result in further fermented and flavored beer as claimed. Claim 17 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 18, Fearnside and Beer Advocate teach the method as defined in claim 1, further comprising, after the generating ultrasound, removing yeast by-products and yeast cells accumulating at the top of the flavoured beer – Fearnside teaches, “filtration is added before, between, or after any of the aging stages” ([0116]). Additionally, Beer Advocate teaches, “After sufficient "aging" simply package as usual leaving the wood chips behind with the yeast etc.” (p. 3, bottom, comment by Sixpack595).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Fearnside to include a step of filtering the flavored beer after the accelerated aging of the fermenting beer and before bottling the flavored beer to remove yeast and other solids as disclosed by Beer Advocate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because it is common practice in brewing to filter or otherwise separate the beer from yeast and solid matter prior to packaging the beer. In doing so, yeast by-products and yeast cells accumulating at the top of the flavored beer would also be removed. Claim 18 is therefore rendered obvious.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 7, ¶ 4 – p. 9, filed on 13 May 2026, with respect to independent claim 1 and its dependent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Choi et al., applied in the prior rejection of record, for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
A new ground of rejection of claims 1-4, 6-10, and 17-18 is made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fearnside et al. in view of Beer Advocate.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Fearnside does not guide the skilled person with regard to how their method of accelerated aging by ultrasound may be adapted to, e.g., beer, or the nature of said beer (p. 6, ¶ 2 – p. 7 ¶ 3), as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 hereinabove, Beer Advocate discloses ultrasonic aging of beer having undergone initial fermentation and undergoing residual fermentation, containing yeast, thereby providing one of ordinary skill in the art guidance on the nature of the beer that is subjected to accelerated aging and flavoring in the method of Fearnside.
No claims are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure”
Mancosky (US 2016/0289619 A1) teaches shockwave accelerated aging of dry-hopped beer post fermentation. Hops, coffee, and chocolate may be used to flavor the beer.
Wampfler (US 2022/0053802 A1) teaches ultrasound treatment of food products including beer during brewing, maturation, or fermentation at 7-100 Hz, but does not mention adding flavoring ingredients.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Shellhammer whose telephone number is (703) 756-5525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emily Le can be reached at (571) 272-0903. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES P. SHELLHAMMER/Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights