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
Claims 1-4 are pending and 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 08/09/2023, 08/05/2024, 03/03/2025, 06/09/2025, 09/12/2025, 10/07/2025 and 12/02/2025 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” and “a concentration of the ethanol in the hydrogen water when mixed with the ethanol being 1% to 4%”, which are directed to the intended use of the “hydrogen water”. Therefore, recitations “for inhibition of alcoholic hepatopathy, to be mixed with ethanol” and “a concentration of the ethanol in the hydrogen water when mixed with the ethanol being 1% to 4%” are 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%. 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].
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 concentration of the ethanol in the hydrogen water when mixed of 1% to 4% which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the “1% to 4%” is a percentage of w/w, v/v, w/v or any other units of concentration. Claims 2-3 which are dependent on claim 1 are also indefinite for failing to remedy the deficiency. As written, one skilled in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claims.
Claim 4 recites concentration of the ethanol in the hydrogen water of 1% to 4% which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the “1% to 4%” is a percentage of w/w, v/v, w/v or any other units of concentration. As written, one skilled in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claims.
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.
Claims 1-3 are 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 claims 1-3, 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 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 recitations “for inhibition of alcoholic hepatopathy, to be mixed with ethanol” and “a concentration of the ethanol in the hydrogen water when mixed with the ethanol being 1% to 4%”, which are directed to the intended use of the “hydrogen water”. Therefore, recitations “for inhibition of alcoholic hepatopathy, to be mixed with ethanol” and “a concentration of the ethanol in the hydrogen water when mixed with the ethanol being 1% to 4%” are 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%. 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, to 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 “550 ppb to 5600 ppb” and “1100 ppb to 1300 ppb” recited in claims 1 and 2, respectively, 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 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.
Claim 4 is 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 claim 4, 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” recited in claim 4. Thus, the range is 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 (e.g., electrolyzed hydrogen water) with ethanol so as to have a concentration of the ethanol in the hydrogen water of 1% to 4%. 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, fist 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, fist 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).
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole is clearly prima facie obvious over the teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion and Correspondence
No claims are found allowable.
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