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 Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the comma in the clause “a group, consisting of” in step b, pg. 2, ln. 1 and step b, pg. 2, ln 4 should be removed so that the claim reads “a group consisting of” Claim 2 and 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the comma in the clause “selected from the group, consisting of” in line 3 should be removed so that the claim reads “selected from the group consisting of” Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a water” in step (bb2) does not need the article “a” and should recite “the beer-based concentrate, the second beer, and water”. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-11 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. With respect to C laim s 1 , 3, and 8 - 10 , a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c) . In the present instance, claim 1 comprises the recitations of “real fermentation degree of more than 60%, preferably more than 75%”, “a residual extract content of more than 3% by mass, preferably more than 5% by mass, in particular more than 6% by mass”, “ the sum of the mass concentrations of glucose, fructose, sucrose, maltose, and maltotriose, does not exceed 1 g/L, preferably 0.1 g/L ”, “ yeast cells in a quantity of less than 10,000/100 mL, preferably less than 100/100 mL, in particular less than 10/100 mL ”, “ wherein the temperature of the first beer during concentrating is 72 °C or less, preferably 65 °C or less, in particular 45 to 65°C ”, “ the resulting beer-based concentrate is less than 40 % by mass, preferably less than 20 % by mass ”, “ the ethanol content of the resulting beer-based concentrate is less than 0.5 g/100 g, preferably less than 0.3 g/100 g, in particular less than 0.1 g/100 g ”, and “ the extract content of the resulting beer-based concentrate is 25 to 85 % by mass, preferably 60 to 80 % by mass, in particular 65 to 75 % by mass ” all recite broad limitations followed by a narrower statement of the limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. In the present instance, claim 3 comprises the recitations of “ the beer-based concentrate in the mixture resulting from each of steps (bb 1 ) to (bb5) is 0.1 to 25 % by mass, preferably 0.2 to 7 % by mass, in particular 0.5 to 5 % by mass ”, “ in the second beer, the sum of the mass concentrations of glucose, fructose, sucrose, maltose, and maltotriose, does not exceed 1 g/L, preferably 0.1 g/L ”, “ fermenting the resulting mixture by means of brewer's yeast, so that in the resulting fermentation product, the sum of the mass concentrations of glucose, fructose, sucrose, maltose, and maltotriose, does not exceed 1 g/L, preferably 0.1 g/L ”, “ the amount of gas dissolved in the resulting beer-based beverage is 1 to 8 g/L ”, and “ the resulting beer-based beverage preferably has an ethanol content of less than 3.5 % by volume, more preferably less than 0.5 % by volume, in particular less than 0.05 % by volume ” all recite broad limitations followed by a narrower statement of the limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. In the present instance, claim 8 comprises the recitations of “ the water content of the beer-based concentrate is less than 40 % by mass, preferably less than 20 % by mass ”, “ the resulting beer-based concentrate is less than 0.5 g/100 g, preferably less than 0.3 g/100 g, in particular less than 0.1 g/100 g ”, and “ the extract content of the beer-based concentrate is 25 to 85 % by mass, preferably 60 to 80 % by mass, in particular 65 to 75 % by mass ” all recite broad limitations followed by a narrower statement of the limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. In the present instance, claim 9 recite s the broad recitation of the beer-based beverage preferably has an ethanol content of less than 3.5 % by volume , and the claim also recites the narrower statement s of the limitation , where the beer-based beverage has an ethanol content of more preferably less than 0.5 % by volume, in particular less than 0.05 % by volume . The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. In the present instance, claim 10 comprises the recitation of “ preferably having an ethanol content of less than 3.5 % by volume, more preferably less than 0.5 % by volume, more preferably less than 0.1 % by volume; in particular less than 0.05 % by volume ”, which recites a broad limitation followed by a narrower statement of the limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. With respect to C laim s 2 and 4 (in (ee)) , the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For all instances of the word “preferably”, the claim will be interpreted such that the limitations are not furth restricted by the exemplary ranges and/or components. With respect to Claim 10, the recitation of “A use of the beer-based concentrate” necessitates an active step for reciting the limitations of the method of using. Due to the lack of active steps, claim 10 is considered indefinite. Additionally, claim 10 recites “for increasing the platefulness of a beverage, without increasing the sweetness and while avoiding any wort taste”. No definition is recited for the term “platefulness” in the instant claim or the specification, and no comparison is recited to give perspective to the increase in platefulness. For these reason, claim 10 is rejected. Due to their dependency on claims 3 and 10, claims 5-7 and 11 are also rejected. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brouwer et al. (WO 2021/228878 A1) in view of Kubota et al. (WO 2021070930 A) relying on Kubota et al. (US 12,312,570 B 2) as the English language equivalent . With respect to Claim 1, Brouwer et al. teaches a process for preparing a liquid beer concentrate with a water content of 35-80%, [Pg. 4, Ln. 14- 15] comprising the steps of providing an alcohol-free beer comprising between 0-0.5% ABV and 0-20 ug hop acids per gram dry matter and reducing the water content by means of membrane separation, selected from the group consisting of nanofiltration, reverse osmosis, and forward osmosis. [Pg. 5, Ln. 14-21] Brouwer et al. teaches that the hop extract may be introduced into the beer before concentrating. [Pg. 6, Ln. 17-18] Additionally, Brouwer teaches that the concentrate may have a maltose concentration of 0-20 g/L and a maltotriose concentration of 1-30 g/L. [Pg. 10, Ln. 25-30] A beer concentrate comprising a sum of 1 g/L maltotriose and maltose, as described in the aforementioned embodiment, would be derived from a beer with a lower concentration. Brouwer et al. teaches an embodiment of the process utilizing nanofiltration, wherein the ethanol free beer is filtered at a temperature of 28°C. [Pg. 23, Ln 11] The process according to Brouwer et al. teaches a method comprising providing a first beer, fermented from yeast, wherein the sum of the mass concentrations of glucose, fructose, sucrose, maltose, and maltotriose does not exceed 1 g/L, concentrating the beer by means of a physical membrane separation, such as nanofiltration, during which the temperature is less than 72°C or less , the water content is less than 40%, and the ethanol content is less than 0.5 g/100g. Brouwer et al. is silent to the degree of fermentation and residual extract content, and the resulting extract content of the concentrate, as well as the yeast cell quantity of the first beer. Kubota et al. teaches a beer-taste fermented malt beverage with an alcohol content of less than 1%, wherein the beverage is excellent in robust feeling of drinking, excellent in sweetness with harmony in sourness, and has a beer-like flavor. [Col. 2, Ln. 26-29] Kubota et al. teaches the final degree of fermentation of the beverage has a value of between 45-80% [Col. 4, Ln. 60-62] an alcohol concentration of preferably less than 0.1%, [Col. 5, Ln. 64-65] and a re sidual extract concentration of between 3.5-10%. [Col. 6, Ln. 11-12] The beer beverage taught by Kubota reads on the limitations of the first beer comprising a real fermentation degree of more than 60% and a residual extract content of greater than 3%, but is silent to the yeast cells. Brouwer et al. and Kubota et al. exist within the same field of endeavor in that they teach beer beverage compositions. Where Brouwer et al. teaches a beer beverage resulting from reconstituting a beer concentrate and a method for producing said beer concentrate, Kubota et al. teaches a n alcohol-free beer beverage that has similar organoleptic properties to alcoholic beer. It would have been obvious to combine the two inventions as Kubota teaches a beer and Brouwer et al. teaches a method of concentrating beer. Additionally, the method taught by Brouwer et al. results in a beer that has been concentrated 6.5 times . [ Pg. 23, Ln. 29] The beer taught by Kubota et al. , concentrated by the method taught by Brouwer et al. , would produce a beer concentrate comprising an extract content of 22.75-60%. The real fermentation degree, real extract degree, and final extract content taught by Kubota et al. overlaps with the ranges recited in claim 1 and the values of the mass concentrations of glucose, fructose, sucrose, maltose, and maltotriose, the temperature at which the concentration happens, the water content of the concentrate, and ethanol content of the concentrate taught in Brouwer et al. overlap with the ranges recited in claim 1. According to MPEP 2144.05 I, “ In the case where the claimed ranges ‘ overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art ’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists ” . Both references are silent to the yeast cells in the first beer, but the combination of the teachings of Kubota et al. and Brouwer et al. teach a first beer that is substantially identical to the composition recited in claim 1, in that it comprises overlapping ranges of fermentation degree, residual extract content, and saccharide content. According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “ Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established ”. It would be obvious that a composition with identical fermentation degree, residual extract, and total saccharide content would have the same amount of yeast cells. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the beer taught in Kubota in the method of concentrating a beer as taught by Brouwer et al. wherein the first beer has a real fermentation of 60% or more, a residual extract content of 3% or more, a sum of the concentration of glucose, fructose, sucrose, maltose, and maltotriose no greater than 1 g/L, and yeast cells no greater than 10,000/100mL, and the first beer is concentrated by means of membrane filtration, such as nanofilt r ation, at a temperature of 72°C or less, wherein the concentrate has a water content of less than 40%, an ethanol con tent of less than 0.5g/100g, and an extract content of between 25-85%, thereby rendering claim 1 obvious. With respect to Claim 2, Brouwer et al. in view of Kubota et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 1, as described above. Additionally, Brouwer et al. teaches that the hop extract may be introduced into the beer before concentrating. [Pg. 6, Ln. 17-18] This reads on adding at least one additive to the first beer, wherein the additive is a hop product. Therefore, Brouwer et al. in view of Kubota et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 2. With respect to Claim 3, Brouwer et al. teaches a composition comprising 3 2 mL beer-based concentrate , 11.4 mL alcoholic liquid and 205 mL carbonated water in order to produce a reconstituted beer , [Pg. 2 7 , Ln. 17 - 18 ] wherein the b eer concentrate contains 6.56mg iso-alpha acids. [Table 7] The b e er-based concentrate is incorporated at about 15% of the taught composition. The method of producing the concentrate taught by Brouwer et al. comprises the steps of providing an alcohol-free beer comprising between 0-0.5% ABV. [Pg. 5, Ln. 14-21] Additionally, Brouwer teaches that the concentrate may have a maltose concentration of 0-20 g/L and a maltotriose concentration of 1-30 g/L. [Pg. 10, Ln. 25-30] A beer concentrate comprising a sum of 1 g/L maltotriose and maltose, as described in the aforementioned embodiment, would be derived from a beer with a lower concentration. This composition reads on the beer beverage produced from concentrate and water wherein the water has a drinking water quality and the portion of the beer-based concentrate is between 0.1-25%. Brouwer et al. is silent to the dissolved oxygen content of the water, carbonizing the beer-based beverage, and an ethanol content of less than 3.5%. Kubota et al. teaches a beer-taste fermented malt beverage with an alcohol content of less than 1%, wherein the beverage is excellent in robust feeling of drinking, excellent in sweetness with harmony in sourness, and has a beer-like flavor. [Col. 2, Ln. 26-29] Additionally, Kubota et al. teaches adding iso- alpha acids as a hop extract component to the non-alcoholic beer, [Col. 6, Ln. 67-67] such as a concentrate. [Col. 7, Ln. 2] Kubota et al. continues, teaching that carbon dioxide gas is added to the beverage in an amount between 1.2-5 gas volumes. [Col. 7, Ln. 21-22] Kubota et al. reads on a beer beverage comprising a beer concentrate and a second beer that has been carbonized in a range of 1 to 8g/L dissolved carbon dioxide, that results in a beer with an ethanol content of less than 3.5%. Brouwer et al. and Kubota et al. exist within the same field of endeavor in that they teach beer beverage compositions. Where Brouwer et al. teaches a beer beverage resulting from reconstituting a beer concentrate and a method for producing said beer concentrate, Kubota et al. teaches an alcohol-free beer beverage that has similar organoleptic properties to alcoholic beer. It would have been obvious to combine the two inventions as Kubota teaches a beer with excellent robust feeling of drinking, sweetness with harmony in sourness, and beer-like flavor, and Brouwer et al. teaches a method of concentrating beer and mixing with other beer-like substances. With regard to the limitation of the second beer comprising a sum of mass concentrations of glucose, fructose, sucrose, maltose, and maltotriose being 1 g/L or less, Brouwer et al. teaches that an alcohol-free beer produced through dealcoholizing the ferment typically contains limited amounts of maltose or maltotriose [Pg. 9, Ln. 21-23]. Kubota et al. teaches that the ferment produced according to the method taught comprises a step of removing alcohol from the beverage until the desired concentration of alcohol is achieved, such as less than 0.1%. [Col. 5, Ln. 61-65] According to MPEP 2112 I, “ Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established ”. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect a non-alcoholic beer produced through substantially identical methods of dealcoholizing would have substantially identical concentrations of maltose and maltotriose. Therefore, the beer produced by the method of Kubota et al. reads on the second beer comprising a sum of mass concentrations of glucose, fructose, sucrose, maltose, and maltotriose being 1 g/L or less, as taught by the non-alcoholic beer taught in Brouwer et al. A composition comprising the alcohol-free beer concentrate taught by Brouwer et al. and the alcohol-free composition taught by Kubota et al. would read on the limitation of the resulting beer beverage having an ethanol content of less than 3.5%. Additionally, the recitation of “wherein the beer-based concentrate is manufactured by the method according to claim 1” amounts to a product-by-process limitation. According to MPEP 2113 I, “[ E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself ” . The method according to claim 1 is taught by the combination of Brouwer et al. in view of Kubota et al. as described above, therefore, the beer concentrate taught by Brouwer et al. in view of Kubota et al. reads on the beer concentrate recited in claim 3 . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teaching of Brouwer et al. in view of Kubota et al. to produce a beer beverage composition comprising a beer concentrate and a second beer , wherein the proportion of beer concentrate to beer is between 0.1-25% and the second beer comprises a sum mass of concentrations of glucose, fructose, sucrose, maltose, and maltotriose not exceeding 1 g/L, carbonizing the beer-based beverage with a carbon dioxide gas such that the amount of gas dissolved in the resulting beer beverage is 1-8 g/L, and the resulting beer based beverage has an ethanol content of less than 3.5% by volume, thereby rendering claim 3 obvious. With respect to Claim 4, Brouwer et al. in view of Kubota et al. teaches the method according to claim 3, as described above. Additionally, Brouwer et al. teaches adding 6.56mg iso-alpha acids [Table 7] to the beer concentrate. This reads on adding at least one additive to the beer concentrate, wherein the additive is a hop product. Therefore, Brouwer et al. in view of Kubota et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 4 . With respect to Claim 5, Brouwer et al. in view of Kubota et al. teaches the method according to claim 3, as described above. Additionally, Brouwer et al. teaches that, in the process of producing a beer, a step of filtration is commonly utilized. [Pg. 7, Ln. 2-3] The field of endeavor of claim 5 is producing a beverage that closely resembles beer, therefore, one would have be en motivated to incorporate steps of a process commonly used for producing beer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teaching of Brouwer et al. in view of Kubota et al. to have filtered the beer-based beverage produced in claim 3, thereby rendering claim 5 obvious. With respect to Claim 6, Brouwer et al. in view of Kubota et al. teaches the method according to claim 3, as described above. Additionally, Kubota et al. teaches the addition of a pH adjusting agent to the beer beverage in order to impart bacteriostatic properties in order to prevent spoilage while maintaining the flavor. [Col. 6, Ln. 34-41] The field of endeavor of claim 6 is producing a beverage that closely resembles beer, therefore, one would have be en motivated to incorporate steps of a process commonly used for producing beer. According to the instant specification, “ stabilizing of the inventive beer-based beverage may be applied additionally or alternatively to filtration. If required, stabilization may be carried out by conventional stabilization or enzymatic means ”. [0055] This disclosure is being interpreted to mean the stabilization step recited in claim 6 is in the interest of microbial stabilization and shelf life of the product. Therefore, the pH adjustor taught in Kubota et al. reads on the limitation of a stabilizer in the beer-based beverage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teaching of Brouwer et al. in view of Kubota et al. to have stabilized the beer-based beverage produced in claim 3, thereby rendering claim 6 obvious. With respect to Claim 7, Brouwer et al. in view of Kubota et al. teaches the method according to claim 3, as described above. Additionally, Brouwer et al. teaches nanofiltration. [Pg. 5, Ln. 14-21] Sterile filtration is well known in the field of endeavor to be a filtration method for passing a solution through a membrane with pores no greater than 0.22um and nanofiltration is a method of filtering through a membrane with pores no greater than 10nm, or 0.010um. Therefore, nanofiltration reads on sterile filtration. MPEP 2144.04 IV. C, states “ selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results ”. Nanofiltration as a process of sterile filtration is implemented in the process as taught by Brouwer et al. The process of producing a beer-based beverage as recited in claim 3 is taught by Brouwer et al. in view of Kubota et al. It would have been obvious to use the nanofiltration taught by Brouwer et al. as applied to the beer-based beverage taught by Brouwer et al. in view of Kubota et al. in order to perform a step of sterile filtration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teachings of Brouwer et al. in view of Kubota et al. to have used sterile filtration in producing the beer-based beverage produced in claim 3, thereby rendering claim 7 obvious. With respect to Claim 8, the recitation of “a beer-based concentrate, manufactured by the method according to claim 1” amounts to a product-by-process limitation. According to MPEP 2113 I, “[ E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself ” . The method according to claim 1 is taught by the combination of Brouwer et al. in view of Kubota et al. as described above. Additionally, Brouwer et al. teaches a process for preparing a liquid beer concentrate with a water content of 35-80% [Pg. 4, Ln. 15] from a beer with between 0-0.5% ABV. [Pg. 5, Ln. 14-21] Kubota et al. teaches a beverage that has a value of 3.5-10% residual extract concentration [Col. 6, Ln. 11-12] and a BU of between 15-27. [Col. 7, Ln. 9] Brouwer et al. and Kubota et al. exist within the same field of endeavor in that they teach beer beverage compositions. Where Brouwer et al. teaches a beer beverage resulting from reconstituting a beer concentrate and a method for producing said beer concentrate, Kubota et al. teaches an alcohol-free beer beverage that has similar organoleptic properties to alcoholic beer. It would have been obvious to combine the two inventions as Brouwer et al. teaches a method of concentrating beer and Kubota teaches a beer for use in the method of concentrating. T he method taught by Brouwer et al. results in a beer that has been concentrated 6.5 times. [Pg. 23, Ln. 29] The beer taught by Kubota et al., concentrated by the method taught by Brouwer et al., would produce a beer concentrate comprising an extract content of 22.75-60% and a BU of 97.5-175.5. the BU lie s inside the ranges recited in claim 8. The ABV, extract content, and water content of the concentrate overlaps with the range recited in claim 8. According to MPEP 2144.05 I, “ In the case where the claimed ranges ‘ overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art ’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists ”. Both references are silent to the total carbohydrate content of the concentrate, but the combination of the teachings of Kubota et al. and Brouwer et al. teach a beer concentrate that is substantially identical to the composition recited in claim 8, in that it comprises overlapping ranges of water content, residual extract content, ethanol content, and isomerized alpha-acids content. According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “ Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established ”. It would have be en obvious that a composition with identical water content, residual extract content, ethanol content, and isomerized alpha-acids content would have the same amount of total carbohydrate content. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teaching of Brouwer et al. in view of Kubota et al. to produce a beer concentrate wherein the concentrate has a residual extract content of 25-85%, a water content of less than 40%, an ethanol content of less than 0.5 g/100g, an isomerized alpha acids content between 0-500 BU, and a total carbohydrate content of 40-60 g/100mL, thereby rendering claim 8 obvious. With respect to Claim 9, Brouwer et al. in view of Kubota et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 8, as described above. Additionally, Kubota et al. teaches a beer-taste fermented malt beverage with an alcohol content of less than 1% [Col. 2, Ln. 26-29] and adding iso-alpha acids as a hop extract component to the non-alcoholic beer, [Col. 6, Ln. 67-67] such as a concentrate. [Col. 7, Ln. 2] Brouwer et al. and Kubota et al. exist within the same field of endeavor in that they teach beer beverage compositions. Where Brouwer et al. teaches a beer beverage resulting from reconstituting a beer concentrate and a method for producing said beer concentrate, Kubota et al. teaches an alcohol-free beer beverage that has similar organoleptic properties to alcoholic beer. It would have been obvious to combine the two inventions as Kubota teaches a beer and Brouwer et al. teaches a method of concentrating beer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teaching of Brouwer et al. in view of Kubota et al. to produce a beer-based beverage comprising a concentrate according to the limitations recited in claim 8, wherein the beer-based beverage has an ethanol content less than 3.5%, thereby rendering claim 9 obvious. With respect to Claim 10, Brouwer et al. in view of Kubota et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 8, as described above. Additionally, Kubota et al. teaches a beer-taste fermented malt beverage with an alcohol content of less than 1% [Col. 2, Ln. 26-29] and adding iso-alpha acids as a hop extract component to the non-alcoholic beer, [Col. 6, Ln. 67-67] such as a concentrate. [Col. 7, Ln. 2] Brouwer et al. and Kubota et al. exist within the same field of endeavor in that they teach beer beverage compositions. Where Brouwer et al. teaches a beer beverage resulting from reconstituting a beer concentrate and a method for producing said beer concentrate, Kubota et al. teaches an alcohol-free beer beverage that has similar organoleptic properties to alcoholic beer. It would have been obvious to combine the two inventions as Kubota teaches a beer and Brouwer et al. teaches a method of concentrating beer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teaching of Brouwer et al. in view of Kubota et al. to use a concentrate produced according to the limitations recited in claim 8, in order to create a beverage, wherein the beverage has an ethanol content less than 3.5%, thereby rendering claim 10 obvious. With respect to Claim 11, Brouwer et al. in view of Kubota et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 10, as described above. Additionally, the beverage produced comprises beer, and is therefore a beer-based beverage. Therefore, Brouwer et al. in view of Kubota et al. renders claim 11 obvious. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JOSEPH CULLEN MERCHLINSKY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2260 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Nikki Dees can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-3435 . 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. /J.C.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 1791 /Nikki H. Dees/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791