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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 filed on 2/5/2024 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/5/2024 was filed after before the first Office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1 and dependent claims 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 process comprising obtaining a low alcohol beer of ethanol content 0.1% ABV by” followed by step (i) obtaining an alcoholic beer having an ethanol content of 3-12% ABV). The scope of the claim is unclear as the open-ended transitional phrase “comprising” does not convey that the first occurrence of “obtaining” is with reference to a finished product that is a low alcohol beer. The second occurrence of “obtaining” is interpreted as “providing” in examination. Further “the distillative removal of ethanol” has no antecedent basis.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatera (US8889201 B2) cited in an IDS.
Regarding claim 1,7-13, 16 and 20, Tatera discloses a method for producing a liquid alcoholic beer concentrate comprising the steps of fermenting wort, removing alcohol and aromatics from at least a part of the fermented wort, in separate or combined streams, thereby obtaining a low alcoholic beer and a distillate containing alcohol and aromatic compounds. The wort is further processed by removing water by reverse osmosis, evaporation, spray drying or a combination of these applications and recombining the distilled alcohol and/or aromatic compounds with the concentrated fermented wort, corresponding to steps (i)-(iv) in the claim. Therefore, the reference discloses first preparing a low-alcohol beer and then removing the water from the low-alcohol beer by membrane separation to obtain a beer concentrate and combining it with a liquid composition containing alcohol and volatile aromatics to obtain an alcohol-containing beer concentrate. The OE content in alcoholic beer, content of ethanol, free amino acids, maltotriose and maltotetraose in a low alcohol beer are not specifically defined. However, these parameters are based on end product requirements and would have been monitored by one of ordinary skill in the art to maintain product quality and consistency, and do not provide a patentable distinction. Likewise, one would select ethanol content of the distillate and its quantity for use in the alcohol-containing liquid depending upon end product specifications. Regarding the claimed process conditions in membrane separation and selection of membrane, absent unexpected results, these parameters are routine process optimization features.
Regarding claims 3-5, content of residual maltotriose and maltotetraose is known to impact flavor and mouthfeel/fulness properties of beer and would one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the content, to obtain consistent product with desired taste properties.
Regarding claim 6, restricted formation of ethanol in yeast fermentation is an obvious choice, because alcohol and congeners are removed to produce low alcohol beer.
Regarding claim 17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to limit riboflavin content to avoid photosensitization and oxidation of hop components leading to off-flavor.
Regarding claim 18, the yeast fermentation produces ethyl acetate in the alcoholic liquid /alcoholic aroma distillate and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to set limits to maintain product quality and consistent organoleptic properties in a beer product made with the concentrate.
Regarding claim 19, containers and single-serve capsules are conventionally used to package beverage concentrates. Therefore no patentable distinction is discerned.
Claims 1-20 are therefore prima facie obvious in view of the art.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Subbalakshmi Prakash whose telephone number is (571)270-3685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Emily Le can be reached at (571) 272-0903. 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.
/SUBBALAKSHMI PRAKASH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights