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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is an additional word in the phrase “includes at the at least one”. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the harshness" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "harshness".
The term “harshness” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “harshness” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. A person having ordinary skill in the art could interpret a vodka as having harshness while another could interpret the same vodka as not having harshness.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the contents of the packet" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "contents of the packet".
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the additive" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "additive".
Clarification and/or correction required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rich et al. (US 2016/0143845).
The claims are interpreted as being directed to an additive packet and not a method of using. The method language is interpreted to the extent that it further describes the packet.
Regarding Claim 1, Rich (‘845) teaches an additive packet, comprising at least two of: means for buffering pH for a liquid, at least one mineral in addition to the means for buffering the pH of a liquid, and means for reducing the harshness of liquid (See Abs., paras. 56-61, Tables 1, 3 packet with calcium carbonate buffering pH, magnesium, potassium, sodium minerals and sugar capable of reducing harshness.).
Regarding Claim 2, Rich (‘845) teaches wherein when the additive packet includes magnesium, sodium, potassium (See Tables 1, 3.).
Regarding Claim 4, Rich (‘845) teaches wherein the additive is a powder (See Abs., paras. 56-61, Tables 1, 3.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT T O'HERN whose telephone number is (571)272-6385. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:00 am - 3:30 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, 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.
/BRENT T O'HERN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793 June 17, 2025