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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-12 and 14-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/08/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 12/08/2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 09/17/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. The Jurek document (Non-patent literature) and Screen Captures from YouTube video “Brewing a Beer From Pasta” (6 pages) are not provided. One page of screen captures is provided, but there is no information other than a title provided.
The information disclosure statement filed 12/22/2023 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because two references are not pertinent to the disclosure: GB 2306617 is to a Vibration Damping Composite and GB 2107200 is to a Polyhedron Toy Device. The remaining references on the IDS have been considered. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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 1-9 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 limitation "the flour" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites “extruding or sheeting and laminating the dough”. It is not clear what alternatives are encompassed by this phrase. Are the alternatives extruding and laminating, sheeting and laminating? Is laminating required? It is not clear what is encompassed by “pasta-like shape”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the cooked dough" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if this limitation references the “cooked dough” of claim 3 (claim 6 depends from claim 1) or if this limitation references “at least partially cooking the processed dough”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the cooked grain" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 refers to cooking dough but does not indicate that the grain is cooked much less then chopped and fragmented as required by claim 7. It is not clear where in the process of claim 1 this step of chopping or fragmenting the grain is present.
Claim 7 refers to adding between 1-30wt% grain to water. Is this 1-30% by weight of the formed dough? It is not clear how the wt% is determined.
Claim 8 refers to “the beverage is fermented”, however, claim 1 states “fermenting the brewing mixture to provide an alcoholic beverage”.
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.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Billings (US 466151).
Billings discloses providing grain (whole or ground, thus meeting the flour of claim 2) and adding the necessary water to form a mash (dough). The mash is gradually elevated in temperature by injection of live steam to a point above 146F (63F) and then rapidly increased to 180-212F (82-100C) to gelatinize the starch (page 1, lines 80-102). This range is considered to anticipate the claimed range of at least 90-less than 100C based upon the significant overlap of the two ranges. Alternatively, the range of Billings provides a prima facie overlap with the claimed range, thus obviating the range to one of ordinary skill. After gelatinizing the starch, the mash is cooled down and if sufficient water has not been introduced while cooling the mash, an additional quantity is not run to enable the stirrers to easily agitate the mass. The mash is then discharged into a separate filtering tub and allowed to stand to pass filtered wort through perforations in the false bottom of the tub and pumped into a kettle. Hot water is sparged on the surface of the grains remaining in the filtering tub until the soluble matter contained therein has been thoroughly extracted. The sparge or wash-water is then mixed with the wort contained in the kettle and the subsequent boiling of the work with hops, cooling and then fermenting continues as in ordinary brewing (page 2, lines 25-60). Thus, a brewing mixture is formed from the gelatinized dough mixture and then fermented.
Claims 1-3, 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brewing A Beer From Pasta-Don’t Brew this Beer (hereinafter Dr Hans https://www.Dr Hans.com/watch?v=7oL9hg1-RZ4) in view of US 2002/0146485 (Oh).
Dr Hans discloses brewing beer using a starting material of pasta where the pasta is used to make a mash, then forming a brewing mixture and fermenting the brewing mixture to make beer.
Dr Hans does not disclose the preparation steps of forming the pasta of providing a supply of grain, forming a dough, processing the dough, partially cooking the dough with steam to at least partially gelatinize the dough.
Oh discloses making pasta by providing wheat grain formed into a flour and combining with water. The ingredients are combined and hydrated with sufficient water to attain the desired consistency and kneaded to make the dough [0018]. The dough can be formed into the desired shape by extrusion through a die plate and then cut into pieces of the desired size. In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, freshly extruded pasta dough, and cut into shapes [0018]. The process includes steaming of the freshly extruded pasta dough, which may optionally have been cut into desired shapes prior to the steaming step. The pasta dough is steamed for a period of about 1 minute to about 10 minutes, preferably about 3 minutes to about 5 minutes at a temperature of from about 88C to about 104C, preferably from about 93C to about 100C [0024]. The preferred temperature range falls within the claimed range. The steaming results in at least some (i.e., partial) gelatinization [0025]. Further treatment results in 100% gelatinization (claim 1, [0028]).
It would have been obvious to provide a pasta processed in the manner disclosed by Oh as the pasta in the beer brewing process of Dr Hans as there are no limitations on the type of pasta used in the beer brewing and the pasta of Oh uses less expensive materials and the process steps to make the pasta are relatively fast for cooking, thus the speed of cooking the pasta (boiling to make mash) is expected to be faster [0016 of Oh]. Oh’s process also eliminates the long drying time resulting in cost savings during pasta manufacturing [0016]. As Dr Hans discloses successfully using pasta to make beer, one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of successfully forming beer using the pasta of Oh in the process of Dr Hans.
Regarding claim 2, as noted above, Oh provides flour [0018].
Regarding claim 3, Oh discloses mixing the flour with the necessary amount of water to form a dough and extruding the dough (pressure) and optionally cutting into desired shapes (fragments) before steaming [0024].
Regarding claim 5, as noted above, the steam treatment is for a period of about 1 minute to about 10 minutes, preferably about 3 minutes to about 5 minutes at a temperature of from about 88C to about 104C, preferably from about 93C to about 100C [0024] and results in partial gelatinization which is considered to inherently provide more than 2% of the starch is gelatinized based upon the similarity in the treatment.
Regarding claim 6, whether the dough is surplus or reject is considered to be an obvious variant of the disclosure of using pasta in general. There is no clear indication that one of ordinary skill could distinguish between one pasta and a “surplus” or “reject” pasta.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood (see 112(b) above), Oh discloses fragmenting the grain by forming into flour (if the phrase “cooked grain” was meant to be just “grain”). Regarding the addition of water, Dr Hans adds water and yeast prior to fermentation (Key Moments, 24:16 and still shot showing yeast addition).
Regarding claim 8, Dr Hans discloses mashing, lautering (separating wort) and boiling and mixing with yeast and water.
Regarding claim 9, Dr Hans does not expressly disclose the length of fermentation but does at least brew overnight and reaches an ABV of 5.9%. Regarding the length of fermentation, this is considered a parameter within the purview of one of ordinary skill to determine and absent a showing of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill would reasonably discover the optimal length of time through routine experimentation.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brewing A Beer From Pasta-Don’t Brew this Beer (hereinafter Dr Hans) in view of US 2002/0146485 (Oh) and further in view of Pollono IT TO960765.
Dr Hans and Oh disclose extruding a dough and making a shapes but does not expressly disclose laminating or sheeting. Pollono discloses an automatic pasta sheeting machine using rollers for laminating to form sheets of dough. It would have been obvious to use an automated machine to form the pasta of Oh into sheets before cutting to automate the process and decrease costs and time for production of the pasta.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Biova Pasta-Biova Project YouTube Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1t-Hl9adno dated 11/29/2022 discloses making beer with pasta (video still provided). Beer By Bart (2014) discloses using pasta to brew beer. Making a Mash from Pasta. Is it Possible? (2020) and the YouTube Video Making a Mash from Pasta. Is it Possible? (2019) each disclose using pasta to brew beer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER C MCNEIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
JENNIFER C. MCNEIL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1793
/Jennifer McNeil/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793