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 6-13 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 6, the limitation of “enhanced molecules” is indefinite because it is unclear how the molecules are enhanced and to what the molecules are being compared to be considered “enhanced”. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim is indefinite. For the purposes of search and examination, “enhanced molecules” will be those that have been treated with acoustic shock waves or pressure pulses dispersed in the quantity of fluid.
Similarly, in Claim 7, the limitation of the quantity of fluid exhibiting “enhanced entropy”, is also indefinite as it is unclear to what the fluid is being compared to be considered having “enhanced entropy”. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim is indefinite. For the purposes of search and examination, “enhanced entropy” will be seen to be met for a quantity of fluid that has been treated with acoustic shock waves or pressure pulses dispersed in that quantity of fluid. The balance of the dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected 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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Warlick (USPA 2009/0041864).
Regarding Claims 1 and 5, Warlick teaches a method of stimulating and energizing a fluid (Paragraph 51) comprising the steps of: activating an acoustic shock wave or pressure pulse generator to emit acoustic shock waves or pressure pulses directed to impinge the fluid, and subjecting the fluid to the acoustic shock waves or pressure pulses to form a stimulated and energized fluid, as Warlick teaches subjecting plant tissue immersed in fluid to acoustic waves which serves to stimulate and impinge the plant cells immersed in the fluid (Paragraphs 52 and 54). Warlick teaches the shock wave generator is attached to a fluid filled internal container and the transmission of the spark generated shock waves are transmitted through the bottom of the internal container into the fluid immersed plant tissue, which could be coffee grounds, where coffee is created and flows out of one or more openings in the internal container (Paragraph 60). Warlick teaches this can be adapted to alcoholic beverages as well (Paragraph 61). Warlick teaches the use of shock waves to stimulate a cellular response stimulating a tissue cell release process (Paragraph 62), where the tissue cells are immersed in the fluid, thereby creating a stimulated or activated fluid as well to the extent that the shock waves are being transmitted through the fluid. This position is further supported by the fact that Warlick teaches the claimed parameters for the acoustic shock waves and pressure pulses used in the process (Paragraph 25), as recited in Claims 1- 5.
Regarding Claims 2-4, Warlick teaches the emitted shock waves can be divergent, planar or near planar and are of low energy and the fluid is preferably stimulated in the absence of cavitation (Paragraphs 63-64).
Regarding Claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 13, Warlick is taken as cited above in the rejection of Claim 1 and teaches a liquid beverage (Paragraph 15), having a composition of stimulated energized fluid by virtue of the claimed method and method parameters being met, as set forth in the above rejection. Therefore, Warlick teaches the stimulated energized fluid comprises a quantity of fluid, as set forth above, and enhanced molecules treated with acoustic shock waves or pressure pulses dispersed in the quantity of fluid, where the quantity of fluid has increased entropy in light of the claimed method and method parameters being met, as recited in Claims 1-5. Since Warlick teaches the claimed composition comprising the same components and the same method of making the claimed composition, the composition will react or co-act in the same manner as claimed by Applicant, and therefore, the properties of these components will necessarily be present because a component and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the components are present, their properties would also be necessarily present. See In re: Papesch and In re: Antonie as cited in MPEP 2141.02 V. As set forth above, Warlick teaches the liquid beverage can be an brewed beverage having an alcoholic content such as beer or other alcoholic beverages, coffee or tea (Paragraphs 14 and 61), which meets the limitation of a non-alcoholic energy booster drink. Warlick teaches at least in the case of making coffee that the liquid is water (Paragraph 57).
Regarding Claim 8, since Warlick is seen to teach the claimed liquid beverage comprising enhanced molecules by virtue of the acoustic waves treatment with the same claimed parameters, the composition will react or co-act in the same manner as claimed by Applicant, and therefore, the properties of these components will necessarily be present because a component and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the components are present, their properties would also be necessarily present. See In re: Papesch and In re: Antonie as cited in MPEP 2141.02 V. Therefore, the limitation of the enhanced molecules being stimulated to enhance absorption when consumed increasing the energy absorbed by a drinker is also seen to be met by the liquid beverage taught by Warlick, as recited in Claims 1-5.
Regarding Claim 11, since Warlick is seen to teach the claimed liquid beverage which can be an alcoholic beverage, where the beverage is made by the claimed method using the claimed method parameters, as set forth above, the composition will react or co-act in the same manner as claimed by Applicant, and therefore, the properties of these components will necessarily be present because a component and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the components are present, their properties would also be necessarily present. See In re: Papesch and In re: Antonie as cited in MPEP 2141.02 V. Therefore, the limitation of the alcohol percentage being increased after acoustic shock wave treatment is also seen to be met by the liquid beverage taught by Warlick by virtue of the claimed method and parameters being taught, as recited in Claims 1-5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA A WATTS whose telephone number is (571)270-7368. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday. 9am-4:30pm.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 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.
JENNA A. WATTS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1791
/JENNA A WATTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791 10/15/2025