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
Four paragraphs filed on 2/9/2024 with the heading “Claim” are pending in the application, and will be referred to as claim 1 in this Office action.
It appears the inventor filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Applicant is suggested to use the following link to the "Pro Se Assistance Center" if assistance is required: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patents-ombuds/pro-se-assistance-center.
Specification
Claim or Claims: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p).
Abstract of the Disclosure: See 37 CFR 1.72 (b) and MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract is a brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole, as concise as the disclosure permits, in a single paragraph preferably not exceeding 150 words, commencing on a separate sheet following the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 1 is 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 regards as the invention.
Four paragraphs are provided in the application as “claim”. Please amend and number the claim(s) in your response to this Office action. For purposes of examination a single claim is considered.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. Each claim must be in one sentence form only. For examples of claims with related subject matter, see US20150182455A1, US10085965B2.
The description in the claim reads “The agave liquor improvement, depending on the cannabis concentration added, the cooking process, the mineral ratios, the temperature, the fermentation and distillation process, the time or aging process, the storage conditions, the protection from direct sun light creates a unique colored, flavored and aromized liquid surely to attract and satisfy a vast of consumers preferences. The agave liquor cannabis flavor improvement will reach an alcohol content of 55% and like other distilled agave liquors, the cannabis flavored agave liquor will be distilled twice resulting a 75 proof or 37.5% alcohol by volume.
However, if a product by process claim was intended, there are no details of the process provided for a meaningful comparison with prior art.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted to recite a flavored distilled alcoholic beverage (75 proof) comprising concentrated cannabis extract (cannabinoids).
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Llamas et al. (US20150182455A1) in view of Skuratovich et al. (US10085965B2).
Regarding claim 1, Llamas discloses an alcoholic beverage containing cannabinoids with alcohol in the range of “about 2% to about 45% wt./wt.”, plus flavor enhancers (abstract). The alcohol content of 45% encompasses the claimed 75 proof beverage having 37.5% ABV. Llamas discloses that the alcoholic beverage may be tequila, mezcal and others (claim 15) thereby disclosing agave based distilled liquor, comprising cannabinoids.
Llamas does not specifically disclose preserving the properties of the original liquor. However, Skuratovich (column 3 lines 1-10) discloses purifying cannabinoids and mixing with alcohol to optimize properties of the cannabinoid containing alcoholic beverage such as tequila (column 5 line 48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to consider making an alcoholic beverage by conventional methods to preserve its properties and adding cannabinoids to the beverage to optimize the functional properties of the beverage, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 1 is 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