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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed August 20, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 16-18, 20, 22, 26, and 28-30 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-15, 19, 21, 23-25, and 27 are canceled.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection, 112(b) rejection, and 103 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 26, 2026.
Based on Applicant’s amendments and remarks, the previous 101 has been modified to address the claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 16-18, 20, 22, 26, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The subject matter eligibility test for the claims is shown below:
Subject Matter Eligibility Test, Step 1
Independent claim 16 is drawn to a method, which is a statutory category.
Subject Matter Eligibility Test, Step 2A Prong One
In Step 2A Prong One, it is determined if the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Independent claim 16 recites a method comprising calculating a theoretical end time for yeast propagation based on a logistic propagation model for the yeast propagation, the original gravity, and the temperature of the mixture at the start time. This is a mathematical calculation mathematical concept-type abstract idea, which is a judicial exception, particularly as the steps are recited at a high level of generality, and do not recite a specialized computer for performing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Independent claim 16 further recites determining a reference value for an extract content of the mixture based on the logistic propagation model, which is a mathematical calculation mathematical concept-type abstract idea, which is a judicial exception, particularly as the steps are recited at a high level of generality, and do not recite a specialized computer for performing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Independent claim 16 further recites comparing the reference value of the extract content with the actual value of the extract content. This comparison is a determination/evaluation-type mental process abstract idea, which can be practically performed in the human mind. The claim as a whole is therefore drawn to an abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Test, Step 2A Prong Two
In step 2A Prong Two, it is determined if the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Independent claim 16 further recites a) providing a mixture of yeast cells and wort, b) measuring an original gravity of the wort or mixture and measuring a temperature of the mixture at a start time, c) measuring an actual value for the extract content during the yeast propagation, and d) adjusting as a function of the difference between the actual value of the extract content and the reference value of the extract content the end time for the yeast propagation. Elements a)-b) amount to mere data gathering, and are insignificant extra-solution activity, as they are required to obtain input in order to calculate the theoretical end time. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Element c) amounts to mere data gathering, and is insignificant extra-solution activity, as it is required in order to be able to compare to the reference value of the extract content. Element d) amounts to a recitation of the words “apply it”, as the claim does not recite specifically how or in what way the end time is adjusted based on the difference between the actual value and the reference value of the extract content. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, although independent claim 16 recites that the method is computer-implemented, the computer recited is a general purpose computer that applies the mathematical concept-type by use of conventional computer functions, and does not qualify as a particular machine. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Subject Matter Eligibility Test, Step 2B
In step 2B, it is determined if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, independent claim 16 additionally recites, “a mixture of yeast cells and wort”, and “a computer”. These elements are well-known and conventional within the art, particularly as the computer recited is a general purpose computer. Further, the application of the abstract idea-type judicial exception into a bioreactor environment for yeast propagation is nothing more than generally linking the mathematical calculation judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(e). Still further, the acts of measuring an original gravity of the wort or mixture and a temperature of the mixture at a start time, and measuring an actual value for the extract content during the yeast propagation, are merely insignificant extra-solution activity, and are mere data-gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Finally, the act of adjusting as a function of the difference between the actual value of the extract content and the reference value of the extract content the end time for the yeast propagation amounts to a recitation of the words “apply it”, as the claim does not recite specifically how or in what way the end time is adjusted based on the difference between the actual value and the reference value of the extract content. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, with regards to the generically recited mixture of yeast cells and wort and computer being nothing more than well-understood, routine, and conventional components that are well-known in the art, the following prior art is relied upon to show that the above elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional:
Macharia et al. (US Pub. No. 2008/0109100; hereinafter Macharia; already of record) teaches a mixture of yeast cells ([0094]), and a computer ([0115]).
Narendranath et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0112568; hereinafter Narendranath; already of record) teaches a mixture of yeast cells ([0007]-[0013]).
Nordkvist et al. (EP Pub. No. 2846160; hereinafter Nordkvist; already of record) teaches a mixture of yeast cells and wort ([0014]), and a computer ([0046]).
Claims 17-18, 20, 22, 26, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as depending on a rejected claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 20, 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part.
Applicant argues on Pgs. 6-7 of their Remarks that as amended claim 16 now recites calculating a theoretical end time for the yeast propagation based on a logistic propagation model, the original gravity, and the temperature of the mixture, and adjusting the end time for the yeast propagation based on a difference between the actual value of the extract content and the reference value of the extract content, that the claims recite a practical improvement of a fermentation process. Applicant further argues that as the claims recite “a computer-implemented method”, that the claims cannot be practically performed in the human mind and are not drawn to a mental process. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The act of calculating the theoretical end time is a mathematical calculation-type abstract idea. Further, as currently recited, the act of adjusting the end time for the yeast propagation based on a difference between the actual value of the extract content and the reference value of the extract content amounts merely to the words “apply it”, as the claim does not recite specifically how or in what way the end time is adjusted based on the difference between the actual value and the reference value of the extract content. In order to amount to more than the words “apply it”, more detail about how the end time is adjusted needs to be included. Further, regarding Applicant’s arguments that the recitation of a computer-implemented method makes the claim eligible subject matter, the computer recited is a general purpose computer that applies the mathematical concept-type by use of conventional computer functions, and does not qualify as a particular machine. See MPEP 2106.05(b). For a more detailed explanation, please see the rejection of Claim 16 in the Claim Rejections-35 USC 101 section of this instant Office Action.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on Pgs. 7-8 of their Remarks that the prior art does not disclose claim 16 as currently amended, the Examiner agrees, and has withdrawn the prior art rejection for claim 16 and its dependent claims. The claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John McGuirk whose telephone number is (571)272-1949. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-530pm.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/JOHN MCGUIRK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
