FINAL 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 Claims
Receipt is acknowledged of the claim amendments filed on 12 June 2026.
Claims 1 and 3-4 have been amended.
Claim 2 is cancelled.
Claims 5-8 have been amended.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are presented for examination herein.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 05/29/2026 have been considered by the Examiner. A signed and initialed copy of the IDS is included with the instant Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
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. Claim 1 contains the recitations “for inhibition of alcoholic hepatopathy, to be mixed with ethanol in a concentration of 1% to 4% v/v in the hydrogen water”, which is directed to the intended use of the “hydrogen water”. Therefore, recitation of “for inhibition of alcoholic hepatopathy, to be mixed with ethanol in a concentration of 1% to 4% v/v in the hydrogen water” is interpreted as not limiting the “hydrogen water” but merely reciting that the “hydrogen water” can be mixed with ethanol that is present in a concentration of 1% to 4% v/v in the hydrogen water. Applicant is reminded that intended use of a claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Note: MPEP 2111.02 [R-3].
Rejections Withdrawn
The rejection of claims 1-4 under U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite, is withdrawn in view of the amendment of claims 1 and 4 filed 12 June 2026.
The rejection of claims 2-3 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MORISAWA (US 6,623,615 B1; date of patent: 23 September 2003), is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments filed 12 June 2026.
Rejection Modified, Maintained and Newly Made for New Claims as Necessitated by the Claim Amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MORISAWA (US 6,623,615 B1; date of patent: 23 September 2003).
Morisawa is primarily directed towards water with dissolved hydrogen of at least 0.1 ppm (abstract).
Regarding claim 1, Morisawa discloses electrolytic hydrogen dissolved water that includes dissolved hydrogen of at least 0.1 ppm (e.g., at least 100 ppb) (column 1, lines 60-62). The range of at least 0.1 ppm (e.g., at least 100 ppb) overlaps the ranges “550 ppb to 5600 ppb” and “1100 ppb to 1300 ppb” recited in claims 1 and 2, respectively. Thus, the ranges are rendered prima facie obvious. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding the recitation “for inhibition of alcoholic hepatopathy, to be mixed with ethanol in a concentration of 1% to 4% v/v in the hydrogen water”, the recitation is directed to the intended use of the “hydrogen water”. Therefore, the recitation “for inhibition of alcoholic hepatopathy, to be mixed with ethanol in a concentration of 1% to 4% v/v in the hydrogen water” is interpreted as not limiting the “hydrogen water” but merely reciting that the “hydrogen water” can be mixed with ethanol that is present in a concentration of 1% to 4% v/v in the hydrogen water. Applicant is reminded that intended use of a claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Note: MPEP 2111.02 [R-3]. In the instant case, Morisawa discloses electrolytic hydrogen dissolved water (e.g., electrolyzed hydrogen water) that includes dissolved hydrogen of at least 0.1 ppm (e.g., at least 100 ppb) (column 1, lines 60-62), which is substantially the same as the instantly claimed hydrogen water having a dissolved hydrogen concentration of 550 ppb to 5600 ppb and would be capable of performing the same intended use, e.g., for inhibition of alcoholic hepatopathy, can be mixed with ethanol to obtain a concentration of ethanol of 1% to 4%.
Although Morisawa discloses electrolytic hydrogen dissolved water (e.g., electrolyzed hydrogen water) that includes dissolved hydrogen, Morisawa teaches of at least 0.1 ppm (e.g., at least 100 ppb) which overlaps ranges “1100 ppb to 1300 ppb” recited in claim 1, therefore, this rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103. The range of at least 0.1 ppm (e.g., at least 100 ppb) overlaps the range “1100 ppb to 1300 ppb” recited in claim 1. Thus, the range is rendered prima facie obvious.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MORISAWA (US 6,623,615 B1; date of patent: 23 September 2003) in view of CEDERBAUM (“Role of oxidative stress in alcohol-induced liver injury”, Arch Toxicol, 83: 519-548, 2009) and BUZZEO (“7 Low Alcohol Beers that Prove Stronger is Not Always Better”, electronic publication obtained from URL: https://www.wineenthusiast.com/culture/spirits/7-low-alcohol-beers-that-prove-stronger-is-not-always-better/?srsltid=AfmBOorWTyuv8k8pLobmrmGWvazvm4JMUOg3c9l8JRRJUiw3zNXzZkdH, obtained on 21 March 2026, publication date: 16 January 2017).
Morisawa is primarily directed towards water with dissolved hydrogen of at least 0.1 ppm (abstract).
Regarding claims 4 and 6, Morisawa discloses electrolytic hydrogen dissolved water (e.g., electrolyzed hydrogen water) that includes dissolved hydrogen of at least 0.1 ppm (e.g., at least 100 ppb) (column 1, lines 60-62). The range of at least 0.1 ppm (e.g., at least 100 ppb) overlaps the range of “550 ppb to 5600 ppb” and “1100 ppb to 1300 ppb”, recited in claims 4 and 6, respectively. Thus, the ranges are rendered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05 (quoted supra). Morisawa discloses application of the electrolytic hydrogen dissolved water in including drinks and beverages as an antioxidation drink (column 4, lines 17-19).
Morisawa does not specifically teach mixing the electrolytic hydrogen dissolved water with ethanol so as to have a concentration of the ethanol in the hydrogen water of 1% to 4%. Morisawa does not specifically teach that the dissolved hydrogen reduces activity of alcohol dehydrogenase and improves activity of aldehyde dehydrogenase. The deficiencies are made up for by the teachings of Cederbaum and Buzzeo.
Cederbaum is primarily directed towards ethanol-induced oxidative stress playing a major role in the mechanisms by which ethanol produces liver injury (abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Cederbaum teaches that many studies show that administration of antioxidants can prevent or ameliorate the toxic actions of alcohol (page 520, second column, second paragraph). Cederbaum teaches that convincing data show that oxidative stress contributes to alcohol-induced liver injury and that addition of antioxidants prevented the alcohol-induced liver injury (page 520, second column, second paragraph). Cederbaum teaches that studies show that ethanol can produce oxidative stress (page 521, first column, second paragraph).
Buzzeo is primarily directed towards low alcohol beers (see entire publication).
Regarding claim 4, Buzzeo teaches beer with low-alcohol (under 5% abv) including a beer with 2.5% abv that is easy to drink (first page, first and second paragraph of the copy of the publication).
It would have been prima facie obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce an alcoholic drink by mixing electrolytic hydrogen dissolved water (e.g., electrolyzed hydrogen water) that includes dissolved hydrogen of at least 0.1 ppm (e.g., at least 100 ppb) with ethanol; wherein the abv of the alcoholic drink includes 2.5% abv. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make those modifications to: 1) produce an alcoholic drink with an antioxidant to reduce oxidative stress from the ethanol in the alcoholic drink by including electrolytic hydrogen dissolved water (e.g., electrolyzed hydrogen water) that includes dissolved hydrogen of at least 0.1 ppm (e.g., at least 100 ppb) which acts as the antioxidant, and 2) produce an alcoholic drink with a desired alcohol abv including 2.5% abv that is easy to drink due to a lower ethanol content. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected success because Morisawa discloses electrolytic hydrogen dissolved water (e.g., electrolyzed hydrogen water) that includes dissolved hydrogen of at least 0.1 ppm (e.g., at least 100 ppb) (column 1, lines 60-62). Morisawa discloses application of the electrolytic hydrogen dissolved water in including drinks and beverages as an antioxidation drink (column 4, lines 17-19). Cederbaum teaches that many studies show that administration of antioxidants can prevent or ameliorate the toxic actions of alcohol (page 520, second column, second paragraph). Cederbaum teaches that convincing data show that oxidative stress contributes to alcohol-induced liver injury and that addition of antioxidants prevented the alcohol-induced liver injury (page 520, second column, second paragraph). Cederbaum teaches that studies show that ethanol can produce oxidative stress (page 521, first column, second paragraph). Buzzeo teaches beer with low-alcohol (under 5% abv) including a beer with 2.5% abv that is easy to drink (first page, first and second paragraph of the copy of the publication).
Regarding the recitation, “wherein the dissolved hydrogen reduces activity of alcohol dehydrogenase and improves activity of aldehyde dehydrogenase” (e.g., claim 4, last two lines), although the combination of Morisawa, Cederbaum and Buzzeo do not specifically teach reducing activity of alcohol dehydrogenase and improving activity of aldehyde dehydrogenase, the claimed composition of hydrogen water comprising dissolved hydrogen concentration of 1100 ppb to 1300 ppb (column 1, lines 60-62 of Morisawa; page 520, second column, second paragraph and page 520, second column, second paragraph of Cederbaum; first page, first and second paragraph of Buzzeo) appears to be the same as the prior art, absent a showing of unobvious differences. The office does not have the facilities and resources to provide the factual evidence needed in order to establish that the composition of the prior art does not possess the same material, structural and steps-like characteristics of the claimed composition. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the burden is on Applicant to prove that the claimed composition is different from that taught by the prior art and to establish patentable differences. See In re Best 562F .2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and Ex parte Gray 10 USPQ 2nd 1992 (PTO Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1989).
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Claims were directed to a titanium alloy containing 0.2-0.4% Mo and 0.6-0.9% Ni having corrosion resistance. A Russian article disclosed a titanium alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni but was silent as to corrosion resistance. The Federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated because the percentages of Mo and Ni were squarely within the claimed ranges. The court went on to say that it was immaterial what properties the alloys had or who discovered the properties because the composition is the same and thus must necessarily exhibit the properties.). MPEP 2112.01 (I).
New Grounds of Rejection Necessitated by the Claim Amendments
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morisawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of NAKANISHI (WO 2016047257 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 5, the composition of claim 1 is described above in section 9.
Morisawa does not specifically teach that the hydrogen water is generated by electrodialysis of water. Morisawa does not specifically teach that the electrodialysis is done by an electrolytic chamber divided by a solid polymer membrane made from a fluorine-based resin having a sulfonate group and platinum plating layers formed on both surfaces of the membrane, such that the hydrogen water is maintained neutral during electrodialysis. The deficiencies are made up for by the teachings of Nakanishi.
Nakanishi is primarily directed towards electrolyzed water-generating device for generating dissolved hydrogen water including potable dissolved hydrogen water (last paragraph on page 2 of the English translation; page 5, second paragraph).
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Nakanishi teaches that dissolved hydrogen water generated by electrolyzed water generator reduces the oxidative stress of patients by removing active oxygen (page 2, first paragraph of the English translation). Nakanishi teaches that when concentration of dissolved hydrogen is increased a large amount of oxygen gas is generated in the anode chamber and in order to sufficiently dissolve the oxygen gas in the water in the anode chamber, the oxygen gas is supplied to the anode chamber and it is necessary to increase the amount of water (page 2, third paragraph of the English translation). Nakanishi teaches a diaphragm that allows ions generated by electrolysis to pass through. When a DC voltage is applied between the anode powder supply and the cathode power supply, water is electrolyzed in the electrolysis chamber to obtain electrolyzed water (page 3, fourth paragraph of the English translation). Nakanishi teaches solid polymer electrolyte membrane made of a fluorine resin material having a sulfonic acid group is used as the diaphragm and plating layers made of platinum are formed on both surfaces of the solid polymer electrolyte membrane (e.g., generated by electrodialysis of water such that the hydrogen water is maintained neutral) (page 3, fifth paragraph of the English translation). Nakanishi teaches that hydrogen gas H2 is generated on the cathode side dissolves in the water in the cathode chamber and constitutes dissolved hydrogen water and oxygen gas O2 is generated in the anode chamber and dissolved in the water in the anode chamber and constitutes dissolved oxygen water. The dissolved oxygen water generated in the anode chamber is discharged to the outside of the electrolyzed water generating device (page 3, sixth and seventh paragraph of the English translation). Nakanishi teaches oxygen gas generated in the anode chamber can be discharged from the electrolyzed water generating device in a safe state and there is an increase in efficiency of water use (page 5, sixth paragraph of the English translation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce hydrogen dissolved water by using an electrolysis chamber containing solid polymer electrolyte membrane made of a fluorine resin material having a sulfonic acid group is used as the diaphragm and plating layers made of platinum are formed on both surfaces of the solid polymer electrolyte membrane (e.g., hydrogen water generated by electrodialysis of water such that the hydrogen water is maintained neutral). The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make those modifications because the hydrogen dissolved water is produced with oxygen gas separated in a safe state and using a method that has increased in efficiency of water use by using the method of generating dissolved hydrogen water of Nakanishi that includes an electrolysis chamber containing solid polymer electrolyte membrane made of a fluorine resin material having a sulfonic acid group is used as the diaphragm and plating layers made of platinum are formed on both surfaces of the solid polymer electrolyte membrane (e.g., hydrogen water generated by electrodialysis of water such that the hydrogen water is maintained neutral), and reasonably would have expected success because Nakanishi teaches that dissolved hydrogen water generated by electrolyzed water generator reduces the oxidative stress of patients by removing active oxygen (page 2, first paragraph of the English translation). Nakanishi teaches that when concentration of dissolved hydrogen is increased a large amount of oxygen gas is generated in the anode chamber and in order to sufficiently dissolve the oxygen gas in the water in the anode chamber, the oxygen gas is supplied to the anode chamber and it is necessary to increase the amount of water (page 2, third paragraph of the English translation). Nakanishi teaches a diaphragm that allows ions generated by electrolysis to pass through. When a DC voltage is applied between the anode powder supply and the cathode power supply, water is electrolyzed in the electrolysis chamber to obtain electrolyzed water (page 3, fourth paragraph of the English translation). Nakanishi teaches solid polymer electrolyte membrane made of a fluorine resin material having a sulfonic acid group is used as the diaphragm and plating layers made of platinum are formed on both surfaces of the solid polymer electrolyte membrane (e.g., generated by electrodialysis of water such that the hydrogen water is maintained neutral) (page 3, fifth paragraph of the English translation). Nakanishi teaches that hydrogen gas H2 is generated on the cathode side dissolves in the water in the cathode chamber and constitutes dissolved hydrogen water and oxygen gas O2 is generated in the anode chamber and dissolved in the water in the anode chamber and constitutes dissolved oxygen water. The dissolved oxygen water generated in the anode chamber is discharged to the outside of the electrolyzed water generating device (page 3, sixth and seventh paragraph of the English translation). Nakanishi teaches oxygen gas generated in the anode chamber can be discharged from the electrolyzed water generating device in a safe state and there is an increase in efficiency of water use (page 5, sixth paragraph of the English translation).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morisawa, in view of Cederbaum and Buzzeo as applied to claims 4 and 6 above, and further in view of NAKANISHI (WO 2016047257 A1).
Morisawa, Cederbaum and Buzzeo do not specifically teach that the hydrogen water is generated by electrodialysis of water. Morisawa does not specifically teach that the electrodialysis is done by an electrolytic chamber divided by a solid polymer membrane made from a fluorine-based resin having a sulfonate group and platinum plating layers formed on both surfaces of the membrane, such that the hydrogen water is maintained neutral during electrodialysis. The deficiencies are made up for by the teachings of Nakanishi.
Nakanishi is primarily directed towards electrolyzed water-generating device for generating dissolved hydrogen water including potable dissolved hydrogen water (last paragraph on page 2 of the English translation; page 5, second paragraph).
Regarding claims 7-8, Nakanishi teaches that dissolved hydrogen water generated by electrolyzed water generator reduces the oxidative stress of patients by removing active oxygen (page 2, first paragraph of the English translation). Nakanishi teaches that when concentration of dissolved hydrogen is increased a large amount of oxygen gas is generated in the anode chamber and in order to sufficiently dissolve the oxygen gas in the water in the anode chamber, the oxygen gas is supplied to the anode chamber and it is necessary to increase the amount of water (page 2, third paragraph of the English translation). Nakanishi teaches a diaphragm that allows ions generated by electrolysis to pass through. When a DC voltage is applied between the anode powder supply and the cathode power supply, water is electrolyzed in the electrolysis chamber to obtain electrolyzed water (page 3, fourth paragraph of the English translation). Nakanishi teaches solid polymer electrolyte membrane made of a fluorine resin material having a sulfonic acid group is used as the diaphragm and plating layers made of platinum are formed on both surfaces of the solid polymer electrolyte membrane (e.g., generated by electrodialysis of water such that the hydrogen water is maintained neutral) (page 3, fifth paragraph of the English translation). Nakanishi teaches that hydrogen gas H2 is generated on the cathode side dissolves in the water in the cathode chamber and constitutes dissolved hydrogen water and oxygen gas O2 is generated in the anode chamber and dissolved in the water in the anode chamber and constitutes dissolved oxygen water. The dissolved oxygen water generated in the anode chamber is discharged to the outside of the electrolyzed water generating device (page 3, sixth and seventh paragraph of the English translation). Nakanishi teaches oxygen gas generated in the anode chamber can be discharged from the electrolyzed water generating device in a safe state and there is an increase in efficiency of water use (page 5, sixth paragraph of the English translation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce an alcoholic drink by mixing electrolytic hydrogen dissolved water that includes dissolved hydrogen of at least 0.1 ppm (e.g., at least 100 ppb) with ethanol; wherein the abv of the alcoholic drink includes 2.5% abv; and wherein the electrolytic hydrogen dissolved water is generated using an electrolysis chamber containing solid polymer electrolyte membrane made of a fluorine resin material having a sulfonic acid group is used as the diaphragm and plating layers made of platinum are formed on both surfaces of the solid polymer electrolyte membrane (e.g., hydrogen water generated by electrodialysis of water such that the hydrogen water is maintained neutral). The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make those modifications to produce an alcoholic drink with dissolved hydrogen that is generated using a method that provides oxygen gas separated in a safe state and using a has increased in efficiency of water use by using the method of generating dissolved hydrogen water of Nakanishi that includes an electrolysis chamber containing solid polymer electrolyte membrane made of a fluorine resin material having a sulfonic acid group is used as the diaphragm and plating layers made of platinum are formed on both surfaces of the solid polymer electrolyte membrane (e.g., hydrogen water generated by electrodialysis of water such that the hydrogen water is maintained neutral), and reasonably would have expected success because Nakanishi teaches that dissolved hydrogen water generated by electrolyzed water generator reduces the oxidative stress of patients by removing active oxygen (page 2, first paragraph of the English translation). Nakanishi teaches that when concentration of dissolved hydrogen is increased a large amount of oxygen gas is generated in the anode chamber and in order to sufficiently dissolve the oxygen gas in the water in the anode chamber, the oxygen gas is supplied to the anode chamber and it is necessary to increase the amount of water (page 2, third paragraph of the English translation). Nakanishi teaches a diaphragm that allows ions generated by electrolysis to pass through. When a DC voltage is applied between the anode powder supply and the cathode power supply, water is electrolyzed in the electrolysis chamber to obtain electrolyzed water (page 3, fourth paragraph of the English translation). Nakanishi teaches solid polymer electrolyte membrane made of a fluorine resin material having a sulfonic acid group is used as the diaphragm and plating layers made of platinum are formed on both surfaces of the solid polymer electrolyte membrane (e.g., generated by electrodialysis of water such that the hydrogen water is maintained neutral) (page 3, fifth paragraph of the English translation). Nakanishi teaches that hydrogen gas H2 is generated on the cathode side dissolves in the water in the cathode chamber and constitutes dissolved hydrogen water and oxygen gas O2 is generated in the anode chamber and dissolved in the water in the anode chamber and constitutes dissolved oxygen water. The dissolved oxygen water generated in the anode chamber is discharged to the outside of the electrolyzed water generating device (page 3, sixth and seventh paragraph of the English translation). Nakanishi teaches oxygen gas generated in the anode chamber can be discharged from the electrolyzed water generating device in a safe state and there is an increase in efficiency of water use (page 5, sixth paragraph of the English translation).
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole is clearly prima facie obvious over the teachings of the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments will be addressed as they pertain to the new grounds of rejection above.
Applicant’s first argument is that Morisawa is not concerned with mixing the hydrogen water with ethanol or with inhibition of alcoholic hepatopathy. Applicant argues that Morisawa is generally directed towards hydrogen water for purposes such as preventing or repairing DNA damage and as a general antioxidation drink. Applicant argues that Morisawa provides no guidance as to why a person of ordinary skill would have selected the narrow 1100-1300 ppb range within Morisawa’s open-ended “at least 0.1 ppm” and not for the purpose of inhibiting alcoholic hepatopathy in combination with ethanol at 1% to 4% v/v concentration. Applicant argues that Cederbaum does not disclose hydrogen water at all, much less that hydrogen water reduces ADH activity or improves ALDH activity. Applicant argues that Buzzeo is silent regarding hydrogen water, ADH, ALDH or any biochemical mechanism. Applicant argues that the combination of references relies on impermissible hindsight.
Applicant's arguments filed on 12 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response, Morisawa discloses electrolytic hydrogen dissolved water (e.g., electrolyzed hydrogen water) that includes dissolved hydrogen of at least 0.1 ppm (e.g., at least 100 ppb) (column 1, lines 60-62). Morisawa discloses application of the electrolytic hydrogen dissolved water in including drinks and beverages as an antioxidation drink (column 4, lines 17-19). Cederbaum teaches that many studies show that administration of antioxidants can prevent or ameliorate the toxic actions of alcohol (page 520, second column, second paragraph). Cederbaum teaches that convincing data show that oxidative stress contributes to alcohol-induced liver injury and that addition of antioxidants prevented the alcohol-induced liver injury (page 520, second column, second paragraph). Cederbaum teaches that studies show that ethanol can produce oxidative stress (page 521, first column, second paragraph). Buzzeo teaches beer with low-alcohol (under 5% abv) including a beer with 2.5% abv that is easy to drink (first page, first and second paragraph of the copy of the publication). Therefore, in light of the disclosure of Morisawa and the teachings of Cederbaum and Buzzeo, it would have been prima facie obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce an alcoholic drink by including mixing electrolytic hydrogen dissolved water (e.g., electrolyzed hydrogen water) that includes dissolved hydrogen of at least 0.1 ppm (e.g., at least 100 ppb) with ethanol; wherein the abv of the alcoholic drink includes 2.5% abv. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make those modifications to: 1) produce an alcoholic drink with an antioxidant to reduce oxidative stress from the ethanol in the alcoholic drink, which contributes to alcohol-induced liver injury (e.g., alcoholic hepatopathy), by including electrolytic hydrogen dissolved water (e.g., electrolyzed hydrogen water) that includes dissolved hydrogen of at least 0.1 ppm (e.g., at least 100 ppb) which acts as the antioxidant, and 2) produce an alcoholic drink with a desired alcohol abv including 2.5% abv that is easy to drink due to a lower ethanol content.
Additionally, Morisawa discloses electrolytic hydrogen dissolved water (e.g., electrolyzed hydrogen water) that includes dissolved hydrogen of at least 0.1 ppm (e.g., at least 100 ppb) (column 1, lines 60-62). Morisawa discloses application of the electrolytic hydrogen dissolved water in including drinks and beverages as an antioxidation drink (column 4, lines 17-19). Cederbaum teaches that many studies show that administration of antioxidants can prevent or ameliorate the toxic actions of alcohol (page 520, second column, second paragraph). Cederbaum teaches that convincing data show that oxidative stress contributes to alcohol-induced liver injury and that addition of antioxidants prevented the alcohol-induced liver injury (page 520, second column, second paragraph). The amount of dissolved hydrogen in dissolved hydrogen water is an art-recognized result-effective variable, e.g., provides antioxidant, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would routinely optimize. Optimization of parameters is a routine practice that would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ and reasonably would expect success. It would have been customary for an artisan of ordinary skill to determine the optimal concentration of dissolved hydrogen in order to lower the amount of oxidative stress from ethanol in alcoholic drink and prevent alcohol-induced liver injury (e.g., alcoholic hepatopathy). Thus, absent some demonstration of unexpected results from the claimed parameters, this optimization of ingredient amount would have been obvious at the time of Applicant's invention.
Regarding instant tables 14 and 15, the tables only shows that compositions with electrolyzed hydrogen water of 1040 ppb and 5600 ppb both provide effect of reducing the toxicity of ethanol to liver cells when compared to pure water. The tables do not provide evidence of unexpected results or superior results for an amount of 1100-1300 ppb of dissolved hydrogen.
In response to applicant's argument that Cederbaum and Buzzeo are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Morisawa, Cederbaum and Buzzeo are in the same field of endeavor and/or closely related analogous art (e.g., beverage chemistry).
Thus, for the reasons of record and for the reasons presented above claims 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Conclusion and Correspondence
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5877. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm 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, David Blanchard can be reached on (571) 272-0827. 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.
/JOHN P NGUYEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/ANNA R FALKOWITZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1600
Prosecution Insights