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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 8/18/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/28/2025. 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 timer, valve, and pressure controller of claim 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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. The drawings are objected to because letters should not be placed in shaded surfaces as per 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3). Additionally, reference letters should be marked with a line or underlined to distinctly show what the applicant had possession of at the time of filing. 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 Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives. Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps. Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 190, “The invention can also improve the consistency and quality of the aged spirits” refers to purported merits of the invention. 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 Objections Claims 14-22 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only and cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claims . See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims have not been further treated on the merits. In U.S. practice, a claim can’t be multiply dependent on a multiply dependent claim. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: Pressure controller in claim 1 1 . Support for the pressure controller can be found in claim 1 6. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 11-13 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 11 recites the limitations "a valve sealing a sealed barrel" and “a pressure controller connected to a sealed valve” on page 12. It is unclear whether the sealed valve in line 5 is the same as the valve in line 4 . Additionally, it is unclear if “a barrel” in line 3 is the same as “a sealed barrel” in line 4. For purposes of examination the examiner is considering the sealed barrel to be the same as the barrel and the sealed valve to be the same as the valve. Regarding claim 12, “any other spirit that can benefit from aging in wooden barrels” is based on an individual’s determination and therefore is subjective which makes the statement indefinite as the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained . Additionally, it is unclear if “a sealed alcoholic spirit” in line 1 is the same as “an alcoholic spirit” in claim 11. For purposes of examination the examiner is considering the sealed alcoholic spirit to be the same as the alcoholic spirit. Regarding claim 13, “wood that can impart desirable flavor” is based on an individual’s determination and therefore is subjective which makes the statement indefinite as the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained . Additionally, it is unclear if “a sealed barrel” in line 1 is the same as “a barrel” in claim 11. For purposes of examination the examiner is considering the sealed barrel to be the same as the barrel. Claims 12-13 are rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch , 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi , 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117. The Markush grouping of the alcoholic spirit and wood material is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: the grouping of claims 12 and 13 should read as “selected from a group consisting of” . To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (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) 11-1 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Bolton (US Publication No. 20220298458 ) . Regarding claim 1, Bolton teaches an apparatus for extracting phenols from a wood barrel (Title) using controlled pressure differences inside and outside a barrel (Pg. 1, par. 10), comprising a barrel filled with an alcoholic spirit (Pg. 2, par. 13); a valve sealing the barrel (Pg. 3, par. 36); a pressure controller connected to the valve (Pg. 3, par. 36; air pump considered to be pressure controller); and a timer controlling a sealed duration of each cycle (Pg. 3, par. 35). Regarding claim 12, Bolton teaches an apparatus for extracting phenols from a wood barrel (Title), wherein the alcoholic spirit is selected from whiskey, rum, brandy, tequila, or any other spirit that can benefit from aging in wooden barrels (Pg. 4, par. 37) . Regarding claim 13, Bolton teaches an apparatus for extracting phenols from a wood barrel (Title), wherein the barrel is made of a wood material selected from oak, cherry, maple, or any other wood that can impart desirable flavor compounds to a sealed spirit. (Pg. 1, par. 6) Expedited Prosecution Although claims 14-22 are not being examined on the merits, for purposes of expediting prosecution, examiner would like to apprise applicant of the following information that may be beneficial when responding to this office action . The following limitations would be interpreted under 112(f): First pressure device in claim 17. Support for the first pressure device can be found on page 9 of the specification which states, "The first pressure device can be a small low pressure air compressor, driving the air pressure up inside and outside the barrel at opposite times in the cycle" . Second pressure device in claim 17. Support for the first pressure device can be found on page 9 of the specification which states, "The second pressure device can be a vacuum, creating mild suction or vacuum inside and outside of the barrel at opposite times in the cycle" First atmospheric sensing device in claim 17. Support for the first pressure device can be found on page 9 of the specification which states, "The first atmospheric sensing device can measure and report the pressure inside the barrel to the computer" . Second atmospheric sensing device in claim 17. Support for the first pressure device can be found on page 10 of the specification which states, "The second atmospheric sensing device can measure and report the pressure outside the barrel to the computer" . First air switching device in claim 17. There is no support in the specification for the first air s witching device , this limitation would be rejected under 112(a) and 112(b) . Second air switching device in claim 17. There is no support in the specification for the first air witching device , this limitation would be rejected under 112(a) and 112(b). Regarding definiteness of the non-examined claims, many of claims 14-22 suffer the same or similar issues as identified by examiner in the 112(b) rejections of claims 11-13. Applicant should note that in addition to Bolton anticipating claims 11 to 13 as outlined above, Bolton also appears to teach the limitations found in claims 14, 16, 18, and 22. Additionally, applicant should review Firestone et al (US Patent Document No. 5906151) with respect to claim 15 as it appears Bolton could be modified by Firestone (Col. 6, lines 39-60) render obvious the claim. Additionally, applicant should review Thompson (US Patent No. 11434455), Tomasello et al (US Publication No. 20100278980 ), and Lloyd (US Patent No. 5130030 ) with respect to claim 17 as it appears Bolton could be modified by Thompson (Col. 1, line 63; Col 2, lines 16-34), Tomasello (Fig. 1; Pg. 2, par. 23), and Lloyd (Fig. 3; Col. 3, lines 24-25) render obvious the claim. Additionally, applicant should review Thompson with respect to claims 19-20 as it appears Bolton could be modified by Thompson (Col. 1, lines 63-67; Col. 2, lines 1-34) render obvious the claims. Additionally, applicant should review Tomasello with respect to claim 21 as it appears Bolton could be modified by Tomasello (Fig. 1; Pg. 2, par. 22-23) render obvious the claim. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHANCIE I VELASQUEZ SANCHEZ whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9477 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 7:30AM-4:30PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Edward Landrum can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5567 . 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. /C.V.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761