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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, claim 7, in the reply filed on 04/07/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 5 and 9 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected Species.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/334,373 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Both claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/334,373 and claim 1 of the present application teach a method of processing an alcoholic beverage, comprising: a. placing a first volume of the beverage between two electrodes, with at least one of the electrodes being electrically insulated from the volume; b. generating an electromagnetic (EM) field between the electrodes to subject the volume to the EM field, wherein the EM field comprises a complex pulse-width-modulated waveform having a fundamental frequency and multiple harmonics derived therefrom; and maintaining the EM field for a certain amount of time.
Both claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/334,373 and claim 21 of the present application teach a method of processing an alcoholic beverage, comprising: a. placing a first volume of the beverage between two electrodes, with at least one of the electrodes being electrically insulated from the volume; b. generating an electromagnetic (EM) field having an average output voltage of between 800 and 900 volts between the electrodes to subject the volume to the EM field, wherein the EM field comprises a complex pulse-width-modulated waveform having a fundamental frequency of 18 kHz in copending Application No. 18/334,373, which falls within the claimed range of 3-25 kHz of the present application, and multiple harmonics derived therefrom; and maintaining the EM field for a certain amount of time.
Additionally, although claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/334,373 does not explicitly state that the A-Amyl alcohol component of a volume of an alcoholic beverage is reduced by at least 1.5 percent, since the claimed processes of the present invention and copending Application No. 18/334,373 are the same, the effects of subjecting the same material (alcoholic beverage) to the same process would also be the same.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 13, 16, 17, 19, and 20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, “at least one of the electrodes” on line 3 should read “at least one of the two electrodes”.
Regarding claim 13, “the certain amount of time the EM field is maintained less than 1 second” should read “the certain amount of time the EM field is maintained is less than 1 second”.
Regarding claim 16, “the certain of time” should read “the certain amount of time”.
Regarding claim 17, “the certain of time” should read “the certain amount of time”.
Regarding claim 19, “the generated EM has an average voltage” should read “the generated EM field has an average voltage”.
Regarding claim 20, “the generated EM has an average voltage” should read “the generated EM field has an average voltage”.
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, 6-8, and 10-23 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 beverage" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the volume" in lines 3, 4, and 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-4, 6-8, and 10-20 are rejected as indefinite as a result on depending upon indefinite claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the step of removing the first volume" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3 is rejected as indefinite as a result on depending upon indefinite claim 2.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the step of removing the first volume" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the step of allowing the first volume to substantially come to rest" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the volume" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the second electrode" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the volume" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the volume" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the volume" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the beverage" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the volume" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the volume" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the volume" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the A-Amyl alcohol component" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Also, regarding claim 21, the meaning of "the A-Amyl alcohol component" is unclear, since the Applicant’s Specification states (Paragraph 0029) that A-Amyl alcohol is one of the isomeric alcohols with the molecular formula C5H12O. However, “a-amyl alcohol” does not appear to be a commonly understood name for a specific isomer of amyl alcohol. The Applicant’s Specification provides the following structure and graphical depiction of a-amyl alcohol:
PNG
media_image1.png
37
210
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
124
263
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, the structure and graphical depiction appear to show different isomers, one with the hydroxyl group positioned at the end of the carbon chain, and the other with the hydroxyl group in the middle of the carbon chain. The structure resembles 1-Pentanol, such as is described in National Center for Biotechnology Information (1-Pentanol), shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
27
129
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
77
227
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, the graphical depiction resembles 3-Pentanol, such as is described in National Center for Biotechnology Information (3-Pentanol), shown below:
PNG
media_image5.png
32
163
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
95
151
media_image6.png
Greyscale
A-amyl alcohol, does not appear to be a commonly used name for either 1-Pentanol or 3-Pentanol. Consequently, it is unclear if “the A-amyl alcohol component” is intended to mean 1-Pentanol, 3-Pentanol, some other amyl alcohol isomer, or any amyl alcohol isomer. Therefore, claim 21 is rejected as indefinite.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the beverage" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the volume" in lines 4, 5, and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 22-23 are rejected as indefinite as a result on depending upon indefinite claim 21
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the volume" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the set amount of time" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the A-Amyl alcohol content" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 10-11, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snodgrass (US 20190345426 A1) in view of Li (CN 108034561 A), Heath (US 20190225521 A1), Stites (US 20150184117 A1), Tanaka (US 20200329742 A1), and Matha Electronics (What is PWM).
Regarding claim 1, Snodgrass teaches (Paragraph 0002, 0038) a device and method for applying a high frequency, high voltage electric field to alcoholic beverages to induce chemical reactions that occur during the aging process, wherein an electric field is passed across a container to produce electrochemical reactions within the liquid or beverage in the container to initiate aging reactions in a shorter amount of time. Snodgrass further teaches (Paragraph 0039; Fig. 2 #1, 102, 104, 108) an exemplary embodiment of the device 1 showing the location of electrodes or field plates 108 within the wall 104, wherein, in some embodiments, the electrodes or field plates 108 are located within the wall 108 such that the field plates 108 are on opposite sides of the cavity 102. Also, Snodgrass teaches (Abstract) the electrodes are insulated. Furthermore, Snodgrass teaches (Paragraph 0054) a user interface may control the amount of time that the high frequency, high voltage field is applied, the voltage output that is applied, or the frequency of the field based on input received from the user.
Snodgrass is silent on the EM field comprising a complex waveform having a pulse-width-modulated fundamental frequency and multiple harmonics derived therefrom.
The use of an EM field comprising a complex waveform having a fundamental frequency and multiple harmonics derived therefrom is known from Li and Heath.
Li teaches (Paragraph 0002, 0040) a liquor aging device and an aging method using the same, wherein the output of a control power supply 6 connected to an electrode assembly is a controllable mixing pulse, so that the harmonics and magnetic field generated by the control power supply 6 cover a wider spectrum and energy range, thereby achieving a faster oscillation and catalytic effect on the wine.
Heath teaches (Paragraph 0004-0005) methods for liquid treatment using at least one electromagnetic field (EMF) having two or more specific and/or varying frequencies and pulses. Heath further teaches (Paragraph 0014) the treating step and/or the applying step comprises the use of a generator or system of generators of high frequency currents using copper or metal rings, electrodes or frequency generators to generate the two or more EMF frequencies and/or the counter rotating magnetic field (CRMF) or the oscillating electrical field (OEF). Also, Heath teaches (Paragraph 0028) treated liquids include alcoholic beverages.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Snodgrass to configure the EM field to comprise a fundamental frequency and multiple harmonics derived therefrom in view of Li and Heath since each of Snodgrass, Li, and Heath is directed to treatment of alcoholic beverages with electrodes, since using electrodes to generate and EM field comprising a fundamental frequency and multiple harmonics derived therefrom is known in the art as shown by Li and Heath, since the harmonics and magnetic field generated by the control power supply 6 cover a wider spectrum and energy range, thereby achieving a faster oscillation and catalytic effect on the wine (Li, Paragraph 0040), and since applying an electromagnetic field to an alcoholic beverage comprising harmonics can remove contaminants (Heath, Paragraph 0028).
Also, the use of a pulse-width modulated waveform for treating alcoholic beverages is known from Stites and Tanaka, and the benefits of using pulse width modulation are known from Matha Electronics.
Stites teaches (Paragraph 0002, 0011, 0106) methods and apparatus for accelerating the aging of wine and other foods or beverages, wherein positive and negative electrodes are each capable of being at least partially immersed in a selected volume of wine for accelerated aging, wherein the operating voltage for the system is supplied by an analog output pin from a microcontroller chip, and a "pseudo-DC" output (pulsed width modulation, PWM) is converted to true DC using a resistor/capacitor (RC) filter, and the control voltage may be set by programming the microcontroller to a percentage PWM cycle.
Tanaka teaches (Paragraph 0002, 0009, 0149) a moisture control method, wherein at least one electrode generates at least one of an electric field, a magnetic field, an electromagnetic field, electromagnetic waves, sound waves, and ultrasonic waves to achieve a bonded state of moisture elements in an object disposed to face the electrode, so that a property of the object is able to be improved, wherein the moisture control apparatus has the effect of improving the taste and smell of not only wine, but also other beverages such as cocktails, Japanese sake, Japanese distilled beverages, and whiskey. Tanaka further teaches (Paragraph 0088, 0089) the AC voltage component applied to an electrode includes voltage of any waveform such as PWM waveforms, and sinusoidal voltage may be generated by an analog circuit, or equivalent sinusoidal waves can be generated with the PWM waveform, wherein an analog or digital circuit may be used.
Matha Electronics teaches pulse width modulation refers to modulating a digital signal’s pulse using another signal, most frequently an analog signal, and has advantages including low cost, low power consumption, efficiency up to 90%, high power handling capacity, little heat whilst working, and independent control of amplitude and frequency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Snodgrass to generate an EM field comprising a complex pulse-width-modulated waveform in view of Stites, Tanaka, and Matha Electronics since Snodgrass, Stites, and Tanaka are all directed to methods of treating alcoholic beverages with EM fields generated by electrodes, since an EM field comprising a pulse width modulated waveform generated by electrodes for the treatment of alcoholic beverages is known in the art as shown by Stites and Tanaka, and since pulse width modulation has advantages including low cost, low power consumption, efficiency up to 90%, high power handling capacity, little heat whilst working, and independent control of amplitude and frequency (Matha Electronics).
Regarding claim 4, Snodgrass teaches (Paragraph 0038; Fig. 2 #1, 102) a container may be placed in a cavity 102. In an exemplary embodiment, power is received from a power socket and the device 1 to produce an electric field that is passed across the container to produce electrochemical reactions within the liquid or beverage in the container to initiate aging reactions. A container is understood to be a device that holds the contents of the container in place, and Snodgrass makes no indication that an agitator, pump, or other movement device is used. The Examiner has understood “allowing the first volume to substantially come to rest” to indicate that no device (e.g., pump, agitator, etc.) or force (e.g. gravity) is causing movement of the alcoholic beverage, as would apply to a liquid held in a static container. Therefore, the first volume is understood to be at rest before the step of generating the EM field.
Regarding claim 10, Snodgrass is silent on the EM field comprising a complex waveform having a predetermined pulse-width-modulated fundamental frequency and multiple harmonics derived therefrom.
Li teaches (Paragraph 0002, 0040) a liquor aging device and an aging method using the same, wherein the output of a control power supply 6 connected to an electrode assembly is a controllable (predetermined) mixing pulse, so that the harmonics and magnetic field generated by the control power supply 6 cover a wider spectrum and energy range, thereby achieving a faster oscillation and catalytic effect on the wine.
Heath teaches (Paragraph 0004-0005) methods for liquid treatment using at least one electromagnetic field (EMF) having two or more specific (predetermined) and/or varying frequencies and pulses, wherein two or more frequencies optionally are selected from a list including 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. (predetermined values). Heath further teaches (Paragraph 0014) the treating step and/or the applying step comprises the use of a generator or system of generators of high frequency currents using copper or metal rings, electrodes or frequency generators to generate the two or more EMF frequencies and/or the counter rotating magnetic field (CRMF) or the oscillating electrical field (OEF). Also, Heath teaches (Paragraph 0028) treated liquids include alcoholic beverages.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Snodgrass to configure the EM field to comprise a predetermined fundamental frequency and multiple harmonics derived therefrom in view of Li and Heath since each of Snodgrass, Li, and Heath is directed to treatment of alcoholic beverages with electrodes, since using electrodes to generate and EM field comprising a predetermined fundamental frequency and multiple harmonics derived therefrom is known in the art as shown by Li and Heath, since the harmonics and magnetic field generated by the control power supply 6 cover a wider spectrum and energy range, thereby achieving a faster oscillation and catalytic effect on the wine (Li, Paragraph 0040), and since applying an electromagnetic field to an alcoholic beverage comprising harmonics can remove contaminants (Heath, Paragraph 0028).
Stites teaches (Paragraph 0002, 0011, 0106) methods and apparatus for accelerating the aging of wine and other foods or beverages, wherein positive and negative electrodes are each capable of being at least partially immersed in a selected volume of wine for accelerated aging, wherein the operating voltage for the system is supplied by an analog output pin from a microcontroller chip, and a "pseudo-DC" output (pulsed width modulation, PWM) is converted to true DC using a resistor/capacitor (RC) filter, and the control voltage may be set by programming the microcontroller to a percentage PWM cycle.
Tanaka teaches (Paragraph 0002, 0009, 0149) a moisture control method, wherein at least one electrode generates at least one of an electric field, a magnetic field, an electromagnetic field, electromagnetic waves, sound waves, and ultrasonic waves to achieve a bonded state of moisture elements in an object disposed to face the electrode, so that a property of the object is able to be improved, wherein the moisture control apparatus has the effect of improving the taste and smell of not only wine, but also other beverages such as cocktails, Japanese sake, Japanese distilled beverages, and whiskey. Tanaka further teaches (Paragraph 0088, 0089) the AC voltage component applied to an electrode includes voltage of any waveform such as PWM waveforms, and sinusoidal voltage may be generated by an analog circuit, or equivalent sinusoidal waves can be generated with the PWM waveform, wherein an analog or digital circuit may be used.
Matha Electronics teaches pulse width modulation refers to modulating a digital signal’s pulse using another signal, most frequently an analog signal, and has advantages including low cost, low power consumption, efficiency up to 90%, high power handling capacity, little heat whilst working, and independent control of amplitude and frequency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Snodgrass to generate an EM field comprising a complex pulse-width-modulated waveform in view of Stites, Tanaka, and Matha Electronics since Snodgrass, Stites, and Tanaka are all directed to methods of treating alcoholic beverages with EM fields generated by electrodes, since an EM field comprising a pulse width modulated waveform generated by electrodes for the treatment of alcoholic beverages is known in the art as shown by Stites and Tanaka, and since pulse width modulation has advantages including low cost, low power consumption, efficiency up to 90%, high power handling capacity, little heat whilst working, and independent control of amplitude and frequency (Matha Electronics).
Regarding claim 11, Snodgrass teaches (Paragraph 0054) a user interface may control the amount of time that the high frequency, high voltage field is applied, the voltage output that is applied, or the frequency of the field based on input received from the user (i.e., before the step of generating the electromagnetic (EM) field).
Regarding claim 18, Snodgrass teaches (Paragraph 0012, 0013) the signal provided by the frequency generator may be from approximately 1 kHz to 50 kHz (1,000 to 50,000 Hz), such as approximately 3 kHz (3,000 Hz) in an exemplary embodiment.
Regarding claim 19, Snodgrass teaches (Paragraph 0038), in one exemplary embodiment, the voltage used to generate the electric field produced by the device can be anywhere from 2,000 to 6,000 V (at least 600 Volts) peak to peak.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snodgrass (US 20190345426 A1) in view of Li (CN 108034561 A), Heath (US 20190225521 A1), Stites (US 20150184117 A1), Tanaka (US 20200329742 A1), and Matha Electronics (What is PWM), and further in view of Van (US 20160150905 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Snodgrass, as modified above, is silent on including the step of removing the first volume from the container after the certain amount of time has elapsed.
Van teaches (Paragraph 0001, 0025, 0039) batch-wise cooking of a food product by subjecting the food product to a pulsed electric field treatment, wherein the food product is placed in a treatment chamber with two opposite electrodes, subjected to a pulsed electric field, and removed from the treatment chamber along with surrounding liquid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Snodgrass to remove the first volume from the container after the certain amount of time has elapsed in view of Van, since both are directed to methods of treating consumable products with a pulsed electric field in a container with electrodes, since removing the consumable product from the container after pulsed electric field treatment is known in the art as shown by Van, since removal of the consumable product from the container allows for subsequent treatment of additional consumable products (Van, Paragraph 0039), since removing the first volume after the certain amount of time has elapsed would allow for cleaning and maintenance of the container and electrodes, and since removing the first volume after the certain amount of time has elapsed would ensure that the first volume has been treated to the desired extent and allow for subsequent processing such as storage or transportation after removal.
Regarding claim 3, Snodgrass, as modified above, is silent on after the step of removing the first volume, placing a second volume of the alcoholic beverage into the container and repeating steps of generating an EM field and maintaining the EM field on the second volume.
Van teaches (Paragraph 0001, 0025, 0039) batch-wise cooking (i.e., treatment in multiple batches/volumes) of a food product by subjecting the food product to a pulsed electric field treatment, wherein the food product is placed in a treatment chamber with two opposite electrodes, subjected to a pulsed electric field, and removed from the treatment chamber along with surrounding liquid, and then cooking another food product in the treatment chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Snodgrass, as modified above, to place a second volume of the alcoholic beverage into the container and repeat steps of generating an EM field and maintaining the EM field on the second volume after the step of removing the first volume in view of Van since both are directed to methods of treating consumable products with a pulsed electric field in a container with electrodes, since removing the consumable product from the container followed by addition and treatment of another consumable product is known in the art as shown by Van, since treating a second volume of food product would increase the amount of treated beverage, allowing a greater number of consumers to purchase and/or consume the beverage, since a batch-wise process allows for a discrete amount of the food product to be treated by the pulsed electric field (Van, Paragraph 0039), providing exact control over the amount of treated product/beverage produced to suit consumer needs and preferences, and since repeating steps of generating an EM field and maintaining the EM field on the second volume will ensure that each volume of the beverage has consistent properties.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snodgrass (US 20190345426 A1) in view of Li (CN 108034561 A), Heath (US 20190225521 A1), Stites (US 20150184117 A1), Tanaka (US 20200329742 A1), and Matha Electronics (What is PWM), and further in view of Anglim (US 1984956 A).
Regarding claim 6, Snodgrass teaches (Abstract) the electrodes are insulated.
Snodgrass is silent on a core electrode located substantially in the middle of the container.
Anglim teaches (Page 1, left column, lines 1-9) a method of pasteurizing milk with an apparatus suitable for use under other conditions, wherein a main container is employed having a wall and bottom insulated from a supporting base, said wall being preferably covered with insulating material, and the container constituting an outer metallic electrode for cooperation with an inner electrode. Anglim further teaches (Page 1, left column, lines 11-20) the inner electrode is equally spaced from all portions of the wall of the container, and this central electrode insures uniformity of temperature at all points, in the product being treated, thereby avoiding well understood and undesirable conditions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Snodgrass, as modified above, to configure at least one electrode as a core electrode located substantially in the middle of the container as taught by Anglim since both are directed to methods of treating beverage liquids with electrodes, since configuring at least one electrode as a core electrode located substantially in the middle of the container is known in the art as shown by Anglim, since using the container as an electrode simplifies the apparatus and reduces the material costs by removing the need for a separate container and electrode, and since the inner electrode is equally spaced from all portions of the wall of the container, and this central electrode insures uniformity of temperature at all points, in the product being treated, thereby avoiding well understood and undesirable conditions (Anglim, Page 1, left column, lines 11-20).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snodgrass (US 20190345426 A1) in view of Li (CN 108034561 A), Heath (US 20190225521 A1), Stites (US 20150184117 A1), Tanaka (US 20200329742 A1), and Matha Electronics (What is PWM), and further in view of Anglim (US 1984956 A) and Snowball (US 20140119991 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Snodgrass, as modified above, is silent on the second electrode not being electrically insulated from the volume and is a wall of the container.
It is noted as stated above, that Snodgrass teaches (Abstract) the electrodes are insulated. However, this is understood to simply be one embodiment of the invention. For example, the claims of Snodgrass do not require the field plates/electrodes to be insulated, indicating that this is an optional embodiment.
Furthermore, providing a second electrode that is not electrically insulated from the volume and is a wall of the container is known in the art from Anglim (US 1984956 A).
Anglim teaches (Page 1, left column, lines 1-9) a method of pasteurizing milk with an apparatus suitable for use under other conditions, wherein a main container is employed having a wall and bottom insulated from a supporting base, said wall being preferably covered with insulating material, and the container constituting an outer metallic electrode for cooperation with an inner electrode. Anglim further teaches (Page 1, right column, lines 16-18; Fig. 5 #10, 11) as shown in Figure 5, insulation 11 is on the outer side of metallic wall 10, while the inner side of metallic wall 10 is exposed to the interior volume of the container, and therefore teaches the second electrode that is not insulated from the volume and is a wall of the container.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Snodgrass, as modified above, to configure the second electrode to not be electrically insulated from the volume and to be a wall of the container as taught by Anglim since both are directed to methods of treating beverage liquids with electrodes, since configuring the second electrode to not be electrically insulated from the volume and to be a wall of the container is known in the art as shown by Anglim, since using the container as an electrode simplifies the apparatus and reduces the material costs by removing the need for a separate container and electrode, and since an internal surface of the wall of the container not being insulated while serving as an electrode has been advantageous for preventing accumulation or deposit while providing uniformity of treatment throughout the product, thereby avoiding well understood and undesirable conditions (Anglim, Page 1, left column, lines 11-20).
Additionally, insulating only one of the two electrodes is known from Snowball (US 20140119991 A1).
Snowball teaches (Paragraph 0002, 0009) a method and an apparatus for the sterilization and/or disinfection of packaged articles such as packaged food and drink products using one electrode covered with an insulating material and the other comprising an exposed electrically conductive region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Snodgrass, as modified above, to insulate only one electrode as taught by Snowball since both are directed to methods of treating beverage products with electrodes, since insulating only one electrode is known in the art as shown by Snowball, since the use of both exposed and insulated electrodes has been found to use substantially lower power (Snowball, Paragraph 0023), and since distributed impedance with an insulated electrode reduces electrode erosion and hence promotes long life and high reliability (Snowball, Paragraph 0039).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snodgrass (US 20190345426 A1) in view of Li (CN 108034561 A), Heath (US 20190225521 A1), Stites (US 20150184117 A1), Tanaka (US 20200329742 A1), and Matha Electronics (What is PWM), and further in view of Sheshakamal (US 20080286423 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Snodgrass is silent on the EM field generated being a substantially toroidal EM field.
Sheshakamal teaches (Paragraph 0029, 0036, 0038; Fig. 1 #100) a method for treating liquid foodstuff with an electric field comprising a toroidal electrode surface, wherein the electrodes produce an electric field with contours 100 that have a toroid shape as shown in Figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Snodgrass, as modified above, to generate an EM field with a substantially toroidal shape as taught by Sheshakamal since both are directed to methods of treating consumable liquids with electric fields, since producing a field having a toroid shape reduces edge effects that would otherwise lead to arcing and limit the effective treatment volume, thus increasing energy efficiency (Sheshakamal, Paragraph 0003, 0012), since maintaining the consistency in the electric field throughout the treatment process contributes to the accuracy and confidence limit of the dosage experienced by the fluid undergoing treatment (Sheshakamal, Paragraph 0052), and since the surfaces of the electrodes (and, therefore, the resulting EM field shape) can adopt different shapes as required by the design details of the treatment application (Sheshakamal, Paragraph 0036).
Claim(s) 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snodgrass (US 20190345426 A1) in view of Li (CN 108034561 A), Heath (US 20190225521 A1), Stites (US 20150184117 A1), Tanaka (US 20200329742 A1), and Matha Electronics (What is PWM), and further in view of Zeng (CN 110951571 A).
Regarding claim 12, Snodgrass, as modified above is silent on the certain amount of time the EM field is maintained being pre-calculated.
Zeng teaches (Paragraph 0002, 0019, 0026) a method for brewing semi-fermented fruit wine with the assistance of a pulsed electric field using electrodes, wherein the effective processing time is determined by a formula based on the volume.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Snodgrass, as modified above to pre-calculate the amount of time the EM field is maintained in view of Zeng since both are directed to methods of treating alcoholic beverages with electric fields produced by electrodes, since calculating the amount of time for maintaining the EM field is known in the art as shown by Zeng, since pre-calculating the amount of time would ensure that the alcoholic beverage was treated to the necessary extent to produce the desired changes in taste, composition, etc., since calculating the amount of time for maintaining the EM field would ensure that treatment of the alcoholic beverage does not take place for longer than necessary, improving the efficiency of production, and since calculating the amount of time for maintaining the EM field according to a defined formula would ensure consistent results.
Regarding claim 15, Snodgrass, as modified above, is silent on the certain amount of time the EM field is maintained being calculated after the first volume is placed in the container and being at least partially based on the volume.
Zeng teaches (Paragraph 0002, 0019, 0026) a method for brewing semi-fermented fruit wine with the assistance of a pulsed electric field using electrodes, wherein the effective processing time is determined by a formula based on the volume.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Snodgrass, as modified above to calculate the amount of time the EM field is maintained at least partially based on the volume in view of Zeng since both are directed to methods of treating alcoholic beverages with electric fields produced by electrodes, since calculating the amount of time for maintaining the EM field based on the volume is known in the art as shown by Zeng, since calculating the amount of time at least partially based on the volume would ensure that the alcoholic beverage was treated to the necessary extent to produce the desired changes in taste, composition, etc., since calculating the amount of time for maintaining the EM field based on the volume would ensure that treatment of the alcoholic beverage does not take place for longer than necessary, improving the efficiency of production, since Zeng demonstrates that volume has a known relationship to the amount of time the EM should be maintained, and since calculating the amount of time for maintaining the EM field at least partially based on the volume according to a defined formula would ensure consistent results.
Additionally, while Snodgrass as modified in view of Zeng, does not explicitly state that the calculation occurs after the first volume is placed in the container, doing so would have been obvious to try since calculating EM field treatment time for an alcoholic beverage based on volume is known in the art as shown by Zeng, since calculating the time has a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions (before the first volume is placed int eh container or after the first volume is placed in the container), and since one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued these known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (See MPEP 2143 E).
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snodgrass (US 20190345426 A1) in view of Li (CN 108034561 A), Heath (US 20190225521 A1), Stites (US 20150184117 A1), Tanaka (US 20200329742 A1), and Matha Electronics (What is PWM), and further in view of Vason (US 20200308518 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Snodgrass, as modified above, is silent on the certain amount of time the EM field is maintained being less than 1 second.
However, the claimed amount of time the EM field is maintained of less than 1 second would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Snodgrass, as modified above, based upon factors such as the type and composition of the alcoholic beverage (where different beverages will have different conductivities), the intended tasted and composition of the processed beverage (where the length of treatment will affect the extent of reactions in the beverage resulting from the EM field), the voltage and frequency supplied, the volume or amount of beverage supplied, etc. Furthermore, the Applicant has neither demonstrated the criticality nor identified any unique or unexpected benefit of the claimed amount of time the EM field is maintained of less than 1 second that would render it non-obvious.
Furthermore, since Snodgrass is silent with regards to the amount of time the EM field is maintained, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art for suitable time values.
Vason teaches (Paragraph 0044) subjecting wine to a pulsed electric field between two electrodes for a time comprised between 0.1 microseconds and 5 seconds (which overlaps with the claimed range of less than one second).
Selection of a known operational parameter (treatment time) based on its suitability for its intended use (electric field treatment of an alcoholic beverage) supports a prima facie obviousness determination (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 14, Snodgrass teaches (Abstract) applying a high frequency, high voltage field to a substance, such as wine.
Snodgrass is silent on the EM field being maintained for less than 8 seconds.
However, the claimed amount of time the EM field is maintained of less than 8 seconds would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Snodgrass, as modified above, based upon factors such as the type and composition of the alcoholic beverage (where different beverages will have different conductivities), the intended tasted and composition of the processed beverage (where the length of treatment will affect the extent of reactions in the beverage resulting from the EM field), the voltage and frequency supplied, the volume or amount of beverage supplied, etc. Furthermore, the Applicant has neither demonstrated the criticality nor identified any unique or unexpected benefit of the claimed amount of time the EM field is maintained of less than 1 second that would render it non-obvious.
Furthermore, since Snodgrass is silent with regards to the amount of time the EM field is maintained, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art for suitable time values.
Vason teaches (Paragraph 0044) subjecting wine to a pulsed electric field between two electrodes for a time comprised between 0.1 microseconds and 5 seconds (which falls within the claimed range of less than 8 seconds).
Selection of a known operational parameter (treatment time) based on its suitability for its intended use (electric field treatment of an alcoholic beverage including wine) supports a prima facie obviousness determination (See MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snodgrass (US 20190345426 A1) in view of Li (CN 108034561 A), Heath (US 20190225521 A1), Stites (US 20150184117 A1), Tanaka (US 20200329742 A1), Matha Electronics (What is PWM), and Vason (US 20200308518 A1), and further in view of Zeng (CN 110951571 A).
Regarding claim 16, Snodgrass, as modified above, is silent on the certain of time being automatically calculated based at least in part on the volume of beverage that is placed in the container.
Zeng teaches (Paragraph 0002, 0019, 0026) a method for brewing semi-fermented fruit wine with the assistance of a pulsed electric field using electrodes, wherein the effective processing time is determined by a formula based on the volume.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Snodgrass, as modified above to calculate the certain amount of time based on the volume in view of Zeng since both are directed to methods of treating alcoholic beverages with electric fields produced by electrodes, since calculating the amount of time based on the volume is known in the art as shown by Zeng, since calculating the amount of time at least partially based on the volume would ensure that the alcoholic beverage was treated to the necessary extent to produce the desired changes in taste, composition, etc., since calculating the amount of time for maintaining the EM field based on the volume would ensure that treatment of the alcoholic beverage does not take place for longer than necessary, improving the efficiency of production, since Zeng demonstrates that volume has a known relationship to the amount of time the EM field should be maintained, and since calculating the amount of time for maintaining the EM field at least partially based on the volume according to a defined formula would ensure consistent results.
Additionally, while Snodgrass, as modified in view of Zeng, does not explicitly state that the calculation of the certain amount of time is automatic, providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (See MPEP2144.04 III.).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snodgrass (US 20190345426 A1) in view of Li (CN 108034561 A), Heath (US 20190225521 A1), Stites (US 20150184117 A1), Tanaka (US 20200329742 A1), Matha Electronics (What is PWM), and Vason (US 20200308518 A1), and further in view of Nikolaou (EP 0987323 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Snodgrass, as modified above, is silent on the certain of time being based at least partly on the volume and the kind of alcoholic beverage that is placed in the container.
Nikolaou teaches (Paragraph 0006, 0010) a method for the quality improvement of alcoholic beverages, by the emission towards the alcoholic beverages, of electromagnetic waves produced by electromechanical or by electronic devices, whose emission has a predetermined programming, controlled power, controlled time of application and controlled quality result, wherein electromagnetic waves are emitted towards containers with the alcoholic beverages. Nikolaou further teaches (Paragraph 0013, 0017) the duration of the method's application is connected to the kind of the alcoholic beverage, on which the method is applied, and, in every augmentative alteration of the volume of the alcoholic beverages on which the method is being applied, the duration time of the application is increased.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Snodgrass, as modified above to base the certain amount of time on the volume and the kind of alcoholic beverage that is placed in the container as taught by Nikolaou since both are directed to methods of treating alcoholic beverages with electric fields, since basing the amount of time on the volume and the kind of alcoholic beverage that is placed in the container is known in the art as shown by Nikolaou, since increasing the time based on alterations to the volume of the beverage allows for treatment with the same power and the same quality improvement (Nikolaou, Paragraph 0013), since the duration of the method's application, is connected to the kind of the alcoholic beverage, on which the method is applied and it is proportional to the desired quality result (Nikolaou, Paragraph 0017), and since calculating the amount of time for maintaining the EM field based on the volume and the king of the alcoholic beverage would ensure that treatment of the alcoholic beverage does not take place for longer than necessary, improving the efficiency of production.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snodgrass (US 20190345426 A1) in view of Li (CN 108034561 A), Heath (US 20190225521 A1), Stites (US 20150184117 A1), Tanaka (US 20200329742 A1), and Matha Electronics (What is PWM), and further in view of Spellmeyer (US 2031232 A).
Regarding claim 13, Snodgrass, as modified above, is silent on an average voltage between 400 and 1200 volts.
However, the claimed average voltage between 400 and 1200 volts would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Snodgrass, as modified above, based upon factors such as the type and composition of the alcoholic beverage (where different beverage compositions will be affected differently by the voltage applied to the electrodes), the intended taste and composition of the processed beverage, the desired production rate, the amount of heat generated by the electrodes (where a greater voltage will generate more heat where too little or excess heat could adversely affect the treatment process), the volume of beverage being treated, the distance between electrodes, etc. Furthermore, the Applicant has neither demonstrated the criticality nor identified any unique or unexpected benefit of the claimed average voltage between 400 and 1200 volts that would render it non-obvious.
Furthermore, since Snodgrass is silent with regards to the average voltage one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art for suitable voltage values.
Spellmeyer teaches (Page 2, Right Column, lines 3-16) a process for aging alcoholic beverages wherein, after a barrel or other container has been filled with the liquid material to be treated, current is passed through two electrodes, and the magnitude of the voltage and current supplied also vastly effects the properties of the finished product, wherein a voltage of from 110 to 1100 volts is used depending on the size of the container and the distance the electrodes are apart (which overlaps with the claimed range of 400 to 1200 volts).
Selection of a known operational parameter (voltage) based on its suitability for its intended use (treatment of an alcoholic beverage with electrodes) supports a prima facie obviousness determination (See MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snodgrass (US 20190345426 A1) in view of Spellmeyer (US 2031232 A), Li (CN 108034561 A), Heath (US 20190225521 A1), Stites (US 20150184117 A1), Tanaka (US 20200329742 A1), Matha Electronics (What is PWM), and Xin et al. (The effects of AC electric field on wine maturation).
Regarding claim 21, Snodgrass teaches (Paragraph 0002, 0038) a device and method for applying a high frequency, high voltage electric field to alcoholic beverages to induce chemical reactions that occur during the aging process, wherein an electric field is passed across a container to produce electrochemical reactions within the liquid or beverage in the container to initiate aging reactions in a shorter amount of time. Snodgrass further teaches (Paragraph 0039; Fig. 2 #1, 102, 104, 108) an exemplary embodiment of the device 1 showing the location of electrodes or field plates 108 within the wall 104, wherein, in some embodiments, the electrodes or field plates 108 are located within the wall 108 such that the field plates 108 are on opposite sides of the cavity 102. Also, Snodgrass teaches (Abstract) the electrodes are insulated. Furthermore, Snodgrass teaches (Paragraph 0054) a user interface may control the amount of time that the high frequency, high voltage field is applied, the voltage output that is applied, or the frequency of the field based on input received from the user. Also, Snodgrass teaches (Paragraph 0012, 0013) the signal provided by the frequency generator may be from approximately 1 kHz to 50 kHz (1,000 to 50,000 Hz), such as approximately 3 kHz (3,000 Hz) in an exemplary embodiment.
Snodgrass is silent on the EM field having an average voltage between 800 and 900 volts Snodgrass is further silent on the EM field comprising a complex waveform having a pulse-width-modulated fundamental frequency and multiple harmonics derived therefrom.
Spellmeyer teaches (Page 2, Right Column, lines 3-16) a process for aging alcoholic beverages wherein, after a barrel or other container has been filled with the liquid material to be treated, current is passed through two electrodes, and the magnitude of the voltage and current supplied also vastly effects the properties of the finished product, wherein a voltage of from 110 to 1100 volts is used depending on the size of the container and the distance the electrodes are apart. Thus, a voltage range encompassing the claimed range is known in the art for treating alcoholic beverages.
Additionally, the claimed average voltage between 800 and 900 volts would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Snodgrass, as modified above, based upon factors such as the type and composition of the alcoholic beverage (where different beverage compositions will be affected differently by the voltage applied to the electrodes), the intended taste and composition of the processed beverage, the desired production rate, the amount of heat generated by the electrodes (where a greater voltage will generate more heat where too little or excess heat could adversely affect the treatment process), the volume of beverage being treated, the distance between electrodes, etc. Furthermore, the Applicant has neither demonstrated the criticality nor identified any unique or unexpected benefit of the claimed average voltage between 800 and 900 volts that would render it non-obvious.
Furthermore, the use of an EM field comprising a complex waveform having a fundamental frequency and multiple harmonics derived therefrom is known from Li and Heath.
Li teaches (Paragraph 0002, 0040) a liquor aging device and an aging method using the same, wherein the output of a control power supply 6 connected to an electrode assembly is a controllable mixing pulse, so that the harmonics and magnetic field generated by the control power supply 6 cover a wider spectrum and energy range, thereby achieving a faster oscillation and catalytic effect on the wine.
Heath teaches (Paragraph 0004-0005) methods for liquid treatment using at least one electromagnetic field (EMF) having two or more specific and/or varying frequencies and pulses. Heath further teaches (Paragraph 0014) the treating step and/or the applying step comprises the use of a generator or system of generators of high frequency currents using copper or metal rings, electrodes or frequency generators to generate the two or more EMF frequencies and/or the counter rotating magnetic field (CRMF) or the oscillating electrical field (OEF). Also, Heath teaches (Paragraph 0028) treated liquids include alcoholic beverages.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Snodgrass to configure the EM field to comprise a fundamental frequency and multiple harmonics derived therefrom in view of Li and Heath since each of Snodgrass, Li, and Heath is directed to treatment of alcoholic beverages with electrodes, since using electrodes to generate and EM field comprising a fundamental frequency and multiple harmonics derived therefrom is known in the art as shown by Li and Heath, since the harmonics and magnetic field generated by the control power supply 6 cover a wider spectrum and energy range, thereby achieving a faster oscillation and catalytic effect on the wine (Li, Paragraph 0040), and since applying an electromagnetic field to an alcoholic beverage comprising harmonics can remove contaminants (Heath, Paragraph 0028).
Also, the use of a pulse-width modulated waveform for treating alcoholic beverages is known from Stites and Tanaka, and the benefits of using pulse width modulation are known from Matha Electronics.
Stites teaches (Paragraph 0002, 0011, 0106) methods and apparatus for accelerating the aging of wine and other foods or beverages, wherein positive and negative electrodes are each capable of being at least partially immersed in a selected volume of wine for accelerated aging, wherein the operating voltage for the system is supplied by an analog output pin from a microcontroller chip, and a "pseudo-DC" output (pulsed width modulation, PWM) is converted to true DC using a resistor/capacitor (RC) filter, and the control voltage may be set by programming the microcontroller to a percentage PWM cycle.
Tanaka teaches (Paragraph 0002, 0009, 0149) a moisture control method, wherein at least one electrode generates at least one of an electric field, a magnetic field, an electromagnetic field, electromagnetic waves, sound waves, and ultrasonic waves to achieve a bonded state of moisture elements in an object disposed to face the electrode, so that a property of the object is able to be improved, wherein the moisture control apparatus has the effect of improving the taste and smell of not only wine, but also other beverages such as cocktails, Japanese sake, Japanese distilled beverages, and whiskey. Tanaka further teaches (Paragraph 0088, 0089) the AC voltage component applied to an electrode includes voltage of any waveform such as PWM waveforms, and sinusoidal voltage may be generated by an analog circuit, or equivalent sinusoidal waves can be generated with the PWM waveform, wherein an analog or digital circuit may be used.
Matha Electronics teaches pulse width modulation refers to modulating a digital signal’s pulse using another signal, most frequently an analog signal, and has advantages including low cost, low power consumption, efficiency up to 90%, high power handling capacity, little heat whilst working, and independent control of amplitude and frequency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Snodgrass to generate an EM field comprising a complex pulse-width-modulated waveform in view of Stites, Tanaka, and Matha Electronics since Snodgrass, Stites, and Tanaka are all directed to methods of treating alcoholic beverages with EM fields generated by electrodes, since an EM field comprising a pulse width modulated waveform generated by electrodes for the treatment of alcoholic beverages is known in the art as shown by Stites and Tanaka, and since pulse width modulation has advantages including low cost, low power consumption, efficiency up to 90%, high power handling capacity, little heat whilst working, and independent control of amplitude and frequency (Matha Electronics).
Furthermore, while Snodgrass, as modified above, does not explicitly state that the A-Amyl alcohol component of a volume of an alcoholic beverage is reduced by at least 1.5 percent, the claimed process is known from the prior art as shown above, and therefore, the effects of implementing the claimed process including reduction of the A-Amyl alcohol component of a volume of an alcoholic beverage by at least 1.5 percent would also be expected to occur.
This is further demonstrated by Xin et al., which teaches (Section 4.3.1; Table 1) that the content of higher alcohols, including iso- and active amyl alcohol in wine is reduced after electric field treatments, such as for example, a 13.8% reduction (see the difference between “sample 0” and “sample 3-3.”
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the process of Snodgrass to reduce the content of iso-amyl alcohol, which has an objectionable odor and a very burning taste (Xin et all, Section 4.3.1), and since higher alcohols are negatively correlated to the mouthfeel for its harsh taste, therefore, the decrease of higher alcohols’ content meant the improvement of wine taste and quality (Xin et all, Section 4.3.1).
Furthermore, the claimed reduction in the A-amyl alcohol component of at least 1.5 percent would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Snodgrass, as modified above, based upon factors such as the type of alcoholic beverage (where different beverages will have different electrical conductivities, and thus be affected by the EM field differently), the length of time for which the EM field is maintained (where a longer time will result in a greater reduction in A-amyl alcohol), the amount or volume of the beverage, the exact voltage and fundamental frequency used, etc. Furthermore, the Applicant has neither demonstrated the criticality nor identified any unique or unexpected benefit of the claimed reduction in the A-amyl alcohol component of at least 1.5 percent that would render it non-obvious.
Regarding claim 22, while Snodgrass, as modified above, does not explicitly state that subjecting the volume to the EM field for the set amount of time reduces the A-amyl alcohol content by at least 5 percent, the claimed process is known from the prior art as shown above with regard to claim 21, and, therefore, the effects of implementing the claimed process including reduction of the A-Amyl alcohol content of a volume of an alcoholic beverage by at least 5 percent would also be expected to occur.
This is further demonstrated by Xin et al., which teaches (Section 4.3.1; Table 1) that the content of higher alcohols, including iso- and active amyl alcohol in wine is reduced after electric field treatments.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the process of Snodgrass to reduce the content of iso-amyl alcohol, which has an objectionable odor and a very burning taste (Xin et all, Section 4.3.1), and since higher alcohols are negatively correlated to the mouthfeel for its harsh taste, therefore, the decrease of higher alcohols’ content meant the improvement of wine taste and quality (Xin et all, Section 4.3.1).
Furthermore, the claimed reduction in the A-amyl alcohol content of at least 5 percent would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Snodgrass, as modified above, based upon factors such as the type of alcoholic beverage (where different beverages will have different electrical conductivities, and thus be affected by the EM field differently), the length of time for which the EM field is maintained (where a longer time will result in a greater reduction in A-amyl alcohol), the amount or volume of the beverage, the exact voltage and fundamental frequency used, etc. Furthermore, the Applicant has neither demonstrated the criticality nor identified any unique or unexpected benefit of the claimed reduction in the A-amyl alcohol content of at least 5 percent that would render it non-obvious.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snodgrass (US 20190345426 A1) in view of Spellmeyer (US 2031232 A), Li (CN 108034561 A), Heath (US 20190225521 A1), Stites (US 20150184117 A1), Tanaka (US 20200329742 A1), Matha Electronics (What is PWM), and Xin et al. (The effects of AC electric field on wine maturation), and further in view of Watson (US 20110070331 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Snodgrass, as modified above, is silent on the alcoholic beverage being pure grain alcohol.
Watson teaches (Paragraph 0002; Claims 1, 15) systems and methods for aging alcohols at an accelerated rate, wherein an ethanol-based solution is introduced into a container and subjected to time-varying electromagnetic fields. Watson further teaches (Paragraph 0021) the ethanol used in the method may be pure ethanol (pure grain alcohol).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Snodgrass to use pure grain alcohol and the alcoholic beverage in view of Watson since both are directed to methods of treating alcoholic beverages with EM fields, since treating ethanol (pure grain alcohol) with an electromagnetic field is known in the art as shown by Watson, since accelerated aging of the ethanol may be performed to provide the end product with a desired flavor profile in a short period of time at a substantially reduced cost (Watson, Paragraph 0004), since pure ethanol can be combined with other ingredients to make a variety of different alcoholic beverages to suit consumer preferences, and since, after the aging process, ethanol can be combined with water to produce an aged spirit with a desired ethanol concentration or proof (Watson, Paragraph 0032).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
May (US 20160040106 A1) teaches an artificial aging apparatus for spirits and other alcoholic beverages, wherein the alcoholic beverages pass through an electromagnetic field generated to expedite aging.
Williamson (US 20050028679 A1) teaches sterilization of wine and other edible fluids utilizing concentrated and focused steady-state electrical fields generated by a series of specially shaped charged electrodes.
Peiffer (US 6287614 B1) teaches a method and apparatus for improving the organoleptic properties of various alcoholic beverages, wherein a product to be treated can be either placed upon, inside or channeled through a magnetic field.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN P TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-2652. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. 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.
/AUSTIN PARKER TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights