DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 1-21 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.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “said cooling including transferring heat from the source wort to the wort concentrate” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how heat could be transferred to the wort concentrate if the cooling step occurs before the membrane filtration. With respect to the prior art, the step of cooling could be simultaneous with membrane filtration.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation “wherein the cooling further includes transferring heat from the source wort to process water, and feeding the process water into the source wort” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how heat could be transferred to process water (i.e., water permeate) if the cooling step occurs before the membrane filtration. With respect to the prior art, the step of cooling could be simultaneous with the membrane filtration.
Regarding claims 6, 12 and 18, the recitation “wherein said cooling further includes transferring heat from the source wort to a cooling fluid, further comprising measuring a temperature of the source wort between the cooling and the circulating, and controlling the flow rate of the cooling fluid based on the temperature of the source wort” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how the heat is transferred to both the water permeate and a cooling fluid. Are the two fluids the same?
Regarding claims 8 and 14, the recitation “further comprising measuring a sugar content of the wort concentrate and controlling the flow rate of the wort concentrate based on the sugar content” renders the claim indefinite because there is no antecedent basis for the term “the flow rate.” It is not clear what flow rate is being controlled. Is the flow rate of the wort concentrate coming out of the reverse osmosis filtration controlled?
Regarding claim 10, the recitation “said cooling including transferring heat from the source wort to the water permeate” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how heat could be transferred to the water permeate if the cooling step occurs before the membrane filtration. With respect to the prior art, the step of cooling could be simultaneous with membrane filtration.
Regarding claim 11, the recitation “further comprising sparging, the sparging including exposing the water permeated to the malt-based solids and transferring sugars from the malt-based solids to the water permeate, into at least a portion of the source wort” renders the claim indefinite.
It is not clear where in the process of claims 10 or 15 the sparging would occur. Is the source wort produced by sparging malt-based solids in a lauter tun? Is the water permeate recirculated to the lauter tun in order to sparge OR are the sugars from the malt-based solids transferred to the water permeate by some other method?
Regarding claims 15 and 17, the recitation “said cooling including transferring heat from the source wort to the wort concentrate” and “wherein the process water includes the water permeate” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how heat could be transferred to the process water (i.e., water permeate) if the cooling step occurs before the membrane filtration. With respect to the prior art, the step of cooling could be simultaneous with membrane filtration.
Regarding claim 19, the recitation “wherein the cooling fluid is at least some of the process water” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how the heat is transferred to both a cooling fluid and a water permeate.
Claims 3-5, 7, 9, 13, 16, 20 and 21 are rejected as being dependent from a rejected base 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moffat (WO 99/47636 – from IDS filed October 12, 2023) in view of Pang (CN 1293234 – Clarivate Analytics translation).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 13, 15, 17 and 20, Moffat discloses a method of processing a wort stream used in the production of beer, the method comprising the steps of: (a) combining malted barley and hot water in a mash tun to form the basic components of wort; (b) transferring the components of the wort to a lauter tun to obtain wort (i.e., providing a source wort at a first temperature); (c) transferring the components from the lauter tun through an ultra-filtration membrane to trap waste products, such as, for example, polyphenols, proteins and beta-glucans while allowing the required components of the wort to pass through and (d) filtering the wort using a reverse osmosis membrane filter to form a wort concentrate (i.e., circulating the wort stream through a membrane filter-p. 8-19 generally, p. 23/L11-p. 24/L6, Figure 2).
Moffat discloses the reverse osmosis filter allows the water to pass or permeate through the membrane (i.e., water permeate) while retaining all other components to form a retentate (i.e., wort concentrate wherein the concentration of carbohydrates within the wort are increased – p. 9/L26-p.10/L3).
Moffat discloses the water entering the lauter tank is heated to a temperature of 75°C by a heat exchanger before being added back to the lauter tun (p. 24/L8-9). The wort in the lauter tun is considered to be at an elevated first temperature (i.e., temperature above ambient temperature). Moffat discloses the material from the lauter tun is membrane filtered (i.e., subjected to reverse osmosis) resulting in a water permeate and wort concentrate. Given Moffat discloses a source of wort entering the membrane filter at an elevated temperature (i.e., above ambient temperature), it necessarily follows the heat from the source wort would be transferred to the wort concentrate and wort permeate (i.e., cooling to a second temperature). Note, claims 1 and 10 do not require any specific degree of cooling or heat transfer.
Given the wort comes to the membrane filtration at an elevated temperature (i.e., temperature greater than ambient temperature), it necessarily follows the temperature would drop during the filtration process and heat would be diffused to the water permeate (i.e., process water) and wort concentrate. Moffat discloses the water that passes through the reverse osmosis membrane (i.e., permeate) is recirculated and added back into the lauter tun (i.e., wherein the permeate becomes process water and is recirculated back to the source wort– p. 19/L18-22, p. 24/L4-6).
Moffat discloses the wort concentrate is heat treated, cooled and oxygenated before being transferred to a fermenter, making it ready to be fermented into beer (p. 11/L19-22). Moffat is silent with respect to the temperature of the heat treatment (i.e., boiling temperature).
Pang teaches sterilizing wort concentrate before fermentation at a temperature of 90° to 120°C (i.e., boiling temperature)for 20-30 minutes (Description).
Moffat and Pang are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely preparing wort concentrates. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have heat treated the concentrate of Moffat at a high sterilization temperature (i.e., 90° to 120°C) as taught by Pang to obtain a sterilized wort concentrate ready for fermenting into a beer.
Given the wort comes to the membrane filtration at an elevated temperature (i.e., temperature greater than ambient temperature), it necessarily follows the temperature would drop during the filtration process and heat would be diffused to the water permeate (i.e., process water) and wort concentrate. Moffat discloses the water that passes through the reverse osmosis membrane (i.e., permeate) is recirculated and added back into the lauter tun (i.e., wherein the permeate becomes process water and is recirculated back to the source wort– p. 19/L18-22, p. 24/L4-6).
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 16, modified Moffat discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Moffat discloses circulating water back into the lauter tun wherein the lauter tun comprises components of the wort (p. 11/L13-17). Moffat disclose the sparging helps to extract the carbohydrate present in the malt (p.16/L4-9).
Regarding claims 8, 14 and 21, modified Moffat discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Moffat discloses the wort (i.e., source wort) comes from a lauter tun (p. 11/L13-17). Moffat discloses the wort is filtered through a reverse osmosis membrane to concentrate carbohydrates within the wort. Moffat discloses the carbohydrate concentration levels are determined by measuring the specific gravity of the wort as water is passed from a filtering stage (p. 8/L21-35, p.9/L26-p.10/L4-9). Moffat discloses transferring the concentrated wort stream to a treatment stage once carbohydrate in the wort have reached a set predetermined concentration (i.e., controlling flow rate -p. 12/L13-15).
Regarding claim 9, modified Moffat discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Moffat discloses a predetermined carbohydrate content in the concentrated wort, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined the carbohydrate content of the “starting” wort in order to adjust the parameters of the reverse osmosis process, including flow rate of the wort concentrate, to obtain the final predetermined carbohydrate content in the concentrated wort.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
- Toombs et al. (US 2012/0251661) teach a process of producing a beer from a wort concentrate and methods of making the wort concentrate by boiling the wort in a brew kettle for a predetermined amount of time to produce a wort concentrate ([0016]). Toombs et al. does not teach reverse osmosis to concentrate sugars in the wort.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH A GWARTNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3874. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
ELIZABETH A. GWARTNEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/ELIZABETH GWARTNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759