Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/359,284

MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENT FOR DETERMINING ALCOHOL BY VOLUME, SPECIFIC GRAVITY, AND CALORIES OF AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Jul 26, 2023
Examiner
KOLB, NATHANIEL J
Art Unit
2896
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Abv Technology Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
374 granted / 603 resolved
-6.0% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+36.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
637
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.5%
-37.5% vs TC avg
§103
45.2%
+5.2% vs TC avg
§102
21.1%
-18.9% vs TC avg
§112
26.9%
-13.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 603 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 . Summary Claims 1-21 are pending. Claims 1-21 are rejected herein. The claims contain allowable subject matter Claim Objections Claim(s) 3 is/are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding claim 3: Delete the period after “ambient” in the fourth to last line. 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. Claim(s) 1-21 is/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 claims 1, 3, and 10: These claims recite that the liquid is heated or cooled to cause a predetermined temperature change using a known amount of energy or power. This limitation does not make sense. It makes sense to apply a known amount of energy or power and then make temperature measurements. This will rely on the thermodynamic relationship Q = mcΔT, where Q is heat, m is mass, c is specific heat, and ΔT is the change in temperature. The variables m and c are constant in the present application. Therefore the limitation “heating or cooling the liquid to cause a predetermined temperature change using the known amount of energy” does not make sense because if ΔT is known and Q is known, there is no dynamic variable that is being measured. If the quantities are tracked over time, then it is a known power that is being measured which is Q/t. Therefore the Examiner recommends deleting “energy or” from line 6 of claim 1, line 6 of claim 3, and line 11 of claim 10. Regarding claims 1 and 7: It is unclear how “measuring temperature of the liquid” in claim 7 relates to “obtaining temperature measurements of the liquid” in claim 1. They appear to be same step as opposed to a repeated measurement in claim 7 and that is how they have been treated. It is further unclear how “calculating a value of specific gravity” in claim 7 relates to “determining density” in claim 1. Please note that density and specific gravity are the same quantity. It appears that claim 7 is trying to give more detail about how density is determined by specifying that it is calculated from differential pressure measurements and temperature measurements. This again raises the question as to whether a different set of temperature measurements are taken. If two sets of temperature measurements are taken then this should be specified with clear language such as “taking a first set of temperature measurements” and “taking a second set of temperature measurements.” If only one set of temperature measurements is taken, then temperature measurement should be deleted from claim 7. Regarding claim 13: It appears that line 4 should recite “the control chamber” instead of “the sample chamber.” It is unclear why control liquid would be in the sample chamber. Regarding claims 19 and 20: Claims 19 and 20 are indefinite in regards to “a heating element” which then applies “a non-boiling heating or cooling cycle”. It appears that “or cooling” should be removed (it appears twice in claim 19). Then claim 20 recites “a cooling device.” Claim 20 also recites that the logic unit is configured to “initiate one or more non-boiling heating and cooling cycles of a control liquid and the liquid under test.” It is unclear how this relates to the logic unit configured to “control the heating element to apply a non-boiling heating or cooling cycle to the liquid” in claim 19. Are these separate processes? Is claim 20 just attempting to add more detail to the process recited in claim 19? Regarding claims 2-9, 11-18, 20, and 21: These claims are rejected as indefinite for depending from an indefinite claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by BENES (US 2008/0218733). Regarding claim 1: As best understood, BENES discloses: A method of operating a testing device to automatically measure alcohol by volume (ABV) of a liquid under test, the method comprising: determining density of the liquid using the testing device (para. 38-39); heating or cooling the liquid for a predetermined amount of time using a known amount of energy or power, or heating or cooling the liquid to cause a predetermined temperature change using the known amount of energy or power (para. 42); obtaining temperature measurements of the liquid during the heating or cooling (from temperature sensor 3 in FIG. 1; para. 42); comparing the temperature measurements (para. 19, 77, and the determined density (para. 94) to a calibrated thermal model of the liquid; and determining ABV of the liquid using the comparison to the calibrated thermal model (abstract). Regarding claim 8: As best understood, BENES discloses: the liquid under test comprises three primary non-dilute components (ethanol, water, and sugar in abstract). Regarding claim 9: As best understood, BENES discloses: the liquid under test is a fermented beverage (para. 12). Allowable Subject Matter The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Using a control sample in a control chamber as recited in claims 2, 3, and 4 was not found in the prior art and would be allowable if incorporated into the independent claims while also clearing up any 112 issues. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other references have been added to the Notice of References Cited for teaching alternative ways of determining ABV. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, JESSICA HAN can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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. /NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 26, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 22, 2025
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596042
GLASS WAFER AND GLASS ELEMENT FOR PRESSURE SENSORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596110
SYSTEM FOR MEASURING ODOR AND METHOD FOR MEASURING ODOR USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590850
DETECTING FAILURE IN A THERMOCOUPLE ARRAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584825
ASPIRATING PATHOGEN DETECTION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571698
APPARATUS FOR TESTING LIQUEFIED HYDROGEN VALVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+36.4%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 603 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month