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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
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 1-11 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 claims 1 and 6, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The term “exotic” in claim 1, line7, and claim 1 step h, lines 26 and 28, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “exotic” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear what properties in whisky or whisky manufacturing conditions are needed for a whisky to be considered “exotic”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " malting the barley grains" in step a, line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous recitation of barley grains (i.e., depositing barley grains in a tank).
Claim 1 step d recites “cooling a wort before subjecting to fermentation”. It is unclear as to what wort is being referred to, (i.e., a wort formed from the malted, milled and mashed barley grains from previous steps a-c, or a different additional wort). The examiner suggests to include recitation of a wort formation in a previous step (i.e., step c. “….to form a wort”) and amend step d to recite “cooling the wort”.
Claim 1 step f recites “subjecting the fermented wort to conditioning”. It is unclear as to what the conditioning step consists of (i.e., cooling, sedimentation or sediment settling, sediment removal, aeration, oxygenation, etc.).
Claim 1 step g recites “beer flavor is retained”. It is unclear how a “beer flavor is retained” since there is no step of providing a beer flavor and there is also no definition of what specifically is considered a beer flavor, as there are different types of beers having different types of beer flavors.
Claim 1 step h recites “new make spirit”. It is unclear what is the “new make” spirit (i.e., is this new spirit the product from steps a-g, or a different new material).
Claim 1 step h recites the limitation "the new make spirit " in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The terms “new and natural” in claim 1, step h, lines 24-25, are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “new and natural” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear what properties in whisky spirit or whisky spirit manufacturing conditions are needed for a whisky to be considered “new and natural”.
Claim 1 step h recites “primary maturation” and “secondary maturation”, however claim 1 does not further recites any limitations that defines or differentiates the primary and secondary maturations. Thus it is unclear what exactly would constitute a primary maturation and a secondary maturation and if there would have to be any difference between the two other than a designation that this time period was primary and this time period was secondary.
The terms “light, medium, and heavily” in claim 2, line 32, with respect to the roasting degree of malts, are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “light, medium, and heavily” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear what exact conditions (i.e., temperature, time, etc.) are needed in the roasting process for the malt in order to obtain roasted malt products that are considered to have a light, medium, heavy degree of roast.
The terms “sweet and flavorful” in claim 3, lines 6-7, with respect to the effect caused by addition of hops, are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “sweet and flavorful” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear what would be considered “sweet and flavorful” as different consumers have different perceptions of these organoleptic properties and sensory experience.
Claim 9 is indefinite because it is unclear if the steps a-d are all individual steps or if a and b, a b and d can be the same step and c and d can be the same step.
Claim 9, line 11, recites “liquid creation”. It is unclear what “liquid creation” is referring to (i.e., an extract in liquid form, or is the claim referring to a step of formation of an extract to be used for treating the casks?).
The term “elevated levels craft whisky experience” in claim 11, lines 18-19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “elevated levels craft whisky experience” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear what would be considered an “elevated levels craft whisky experience” since different consumers would have different perceptions of what an “elevated levels craft whisky experience” is, based on taste preferences and other factors.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 9 already depends from claim 1, and claim 10 fails to further limit the claims. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 4-5, and 7-8, are rejected by virtue of their dependence of a base rejected claim.
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(s) 1-6, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al. [WO2019242631A1], hereinafter Yin, in view of Zhong [CN113061499A], and Sato et al. [US20200056131A1], hereinafter Sato, evidenced by Helen [Brewery equipment, 2021] (for claim 1, step c).
Regarding claim 1, Yin teaches a process of preparation of “exotic” (since Yin uses the same raw materials and steps being claimed) craft whisky spirits [Yin, abstract, 0050], the process comprises the steps of:
malting barley grains [Yin, 0028, 0052, Example 1; 0063, Example 6], implicitly taught since malted barley is used as main raw material;
milling (crushing) the malted barley grains [Yin, 0052, Example 1; 0063, Example 6] and mixing with one or more adjuncts such as rice, corn [Yin, claim 4, 0014], wheat, rye (are disclosed by Yin as suitable adjuncts to make whisky) [Yin, 0003] to give characteristic flavor of the adjuncts (implicitly taught by Yin since the rice, corn adjuncts are milled and mixed/processed/saccharified with the malted/milled barley, thus imparting the characteristic flavors of the rice and/or corn adjuncts) [Yin, 0014, 0029];
mashing the milled barley grains to achieve liquefaction and saccharification (implicitly taught by Yin since the milled, malted barley is mixed with hot water, i.e., 50-55°C, causing gelatinization because the hot water swells and burst the starch granules within the barley forming a thick slurry, then liquefaction since the endogenous enzymes in barley such as alpha-amylase acts on the gelatinized starches to yield shorter dextrin chains and turning the thick slurry into a liquid/runny slurry, then saccharification where other endogenous enzymes such as beta-amylase act on the shorter dextrin chains of the liquified starches to convert them into fermentable sugars and form a saccharified mash. See evidence of Helen, p.1-4) and adding one or more hops to impart a characteristic flavor [Yin, 0014, 0028-0030];
cooling a wort (the wort obtained from the saccharified and filtered mash) before subjecting to fermentation [Yin, 0030];
subjecting the cooled wort to fermentation by adding yeast or yeast or both during which the simple sugars are converted to alcohol [Yin, 0030, 0033];
subjecting the fermented wort to conditioning (cold storage period, cooling, vortex settling or vortex sedimentation, oxygenation, being steps equivalent to conditioning before yeast removal by filtration) followed by filtration [Yin, 0012, 0052, Example 1; 0074, Example 11];
subjecting the filtered wort to double stage pot distillation during which beer flavor is retained and alcohol strength above 60% v/v is achieved (Yin method includes a first and second pot distillation process to obtain a hop whisky distilled product with beer flavor having alcohol contents up to 87% v/v, which is equivalent to the claimed double stage distillation process to obtain a product with beer flavor, and an alcohol strength above 60% v/v) [Yin, claim 1, 0010, 0033, 0053-0099, Examples 1-22];
subjecting the new make spirit to primary maturation using one or more wooden casks (aging the newly produced distilled spirit in oak barrels) and maturation to achieve natural cues to yield exotic craft whisky spirit; wherein a characteristic aroma and refreshment cues of beer (from hops) is imparted into said exotic craft whisky spirit along with the hint of one or more woody notes (oak barrels aromatics) and flavors [Yin, 0037].
With respect to the claimed secondary maturation, while Yin does not explicitly recites performing a secondary maturation, given that Yin teaches various examples where the spirit is matured (aged) in wood (oak) barrels for 2 years [Yin, 0053-0099], under the broadest reasonable interpretation, there is reasonable basis to conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the first year as the primary maturation, and the second year as the secondary maturation. Furthermore, Yin does not teach an upper limit for the maturation time period (more than 2 years [Yin, claim 2, 0011]), and the same argument of the 2 year maturation period stated above can be made using more years with designated amounts of times as primary and secondary maturation times (i.e., primary maturation of 2 years and secondary maturation of 1 additional year or 2 additional years or more).
However, if one was to argue that Yin does not explicitly teaches performing a secondary maturation;
Zhong teaches a method of making a beer flavored whisky [Zhong, abstract], including a barrel secondary maturation to achieve natural cues to yield exotic craft whisky spirit [Zhong, 0005, 0046, 0047].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform a secondary maturation step as taught by Zhong, in the method of Yin, because Zhong teaches that performing a second maturation enhances the richness of the finished whisky, impart caramel and special malt aromas, accelerates the maturation of the whisky, and speeds up the aging process [Zhong, 0005, 0046, 0047].
Further, Yin teaches the pot distillation as discussed above in step g, but does not teaches the distillation pot is specifically a copper pot distillation.
Zhong teaches the method of making a beer flavored whisky discussed above, the method comprising also a double stage (i.e., 2 times) distillation [Zhong, abstract] (which is already taught by Yin, see step g above), said distillation being performed in a copper pot [Zhong, claim 9, 0030, 0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a copper distillation pot as taught by Zhong, in the method of Yin, because Yin already teaches using a distillation pot but simply did not mention the material of the pot, and further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because Zhong teaches that performing a copper pot distillation in a pot that is completely made of copper would provide whisky products with an alcohol content of 73% [Zhong, 0030, 0044]. Lastly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a copper distillation pot because an ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize the selection of a known material (copper) based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07, “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness”.
Yin teaches subjecting the cooled wort to fermentation by adding yeast, but does not explicitly recites that the yeast is specifically Brewer's or Distiller’s yeast.
Sato teaches a method of making whisky [Sato, 0001], including a yeast fermentation step [Sato, 0006], wherein the yeast used is Distiller’s yeast [Sato, 0076-0077].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Distiller’s yeast as taught by Sato, in the method of Yin, because Sato teaches that Distillers yeast is known in the art as commonly used yeast for the production of whisky [Sato, 0077]. Lastly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Distiller’s yeast because the selection of a known material (Distiller’s yeast) based on its suitability for its intended use is supported by prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 2, modified Yin teaches the process as claimed in claim 1, and further Yin in view of Zhong teaches wherein the malted barley grains are heavily roasted (burnt, deeply baked malt) or light malts [Zhong, abstract].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use light or heavily roasted malt as taught by Zhong, in the method of Yin, because Zhong teaches that using light or heavily roasted malt an ordinarily skilled artisan can optimize the preferred malt composition to obtain a whisky product with a rich and unique roasted aroma [Zhong, abstract, 0013, 0036].
Regarding claim 3, modified Yin teaches the process as claimed in claim 1, wherein addition of the hops yields a sweet and a flavorful wort [Yin, abstract, 0047], since Yin teaches that the addition of hops or hop products produce a hop whisky with full body, mellowness and sweetness, therefore this is equivalent to the claimed addition of the hops yields a sweet and a flavorful wort.
Regarding claim 4, modified Yin teaches the process as claimed in claim 1, wherein the fermentation comprises top and bottom fermentation selected based on the flavor [Yin, claim 5, 0015, 0030, 0038], since Yin teaches oxygenation of top and bottom yeast which would yield a top and bottom fermentation based on the flavor.
Regarding claim 5, modified Yin teaches the process as claimed in claim 1, where Yin teaches double stage (first and second pot distillation) pot distillation (see claim 1, step g above), top and bottom fermentation (see claim 4 above), and Yin in view of Zhong teaches copper pot distillation (see claim 1, step g above), and further Yin teaches wherein one or more type of beer selected from a group comprising Ale, and Lager [Yin, claim 5, claim 6, 0015, 0038-0039].
Regarding claim 6, modified Yin teaches the process as claimed in claim 1, wherein the distillate after pot distillation retains malty characters along with the characteristic refreshing aroma and taste of beer such as sweet, floral, fruity, citrous, and malty [Yin, abstract, 0025, 0029, 0047-0048, claim 1, 0010, 0033, 0105].
Regarding claim 11, modified Yin teaches the process as claimed in claim 1, wherein the process provides multiple varieties of whisky flavour blocks which on blending (aging, diluting and blending) provides elevated levels craft whisky experience to the consumers (equivalent to: adjust flavor and taste to meet the needs of different customers as disclosed by Yin) [Yin, abstract, 0029, 0031].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al. [WO2019242631A1], hereinafter Yin, in view of Zhong [CN113061499A], and Sato et al. [US20200056131A1], hereinafter Sato, evidenced by Helen [Brewery equipment, 2021] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peniche [US20160097023A1] and/or Inui et al. [US20190223471A1], hereinafter Inui.
Regarding claim 7, modified Yin teaches the process as claimed in claim 1, wherein the primary maturation is achieved using one or more types of wooden casks made from virgin (new/unused barrel) oak [Yin, 0020, 0046-0047], but does not teach the wooden casks with different level of charring.
Peniche teaches methods for maturation of whisky [Peniche, abstract, 0001], wherein maturation may be performed in oak barrels having different levels of charring [Peniche, 0027], since Peniche teaches that charring of wood may be performed by heating the wood at a temperature between 600 and 1400 degrees F. for up to generally 10 minutes, or using a direct high intensity flame for up to generally 5 minutes, which would yield wood with different charring levels since a range of different temperatures and times are disclosed, therefore implicitly teaching different levels of charring.
Furthermore;
Inui teaches a method of making beer-taste beverages [Inui, 0001], wherein the maturation is achieved using different kinds of woods, and different level of charring (strength of char) [Inui, 0025].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to heat the wood for maturation at different temperatures, which would provide wood with different levels of charring as taught by Peniche and/or use wood with different levels of charring as taught by Inui, in the method of modified Yin, since Yin already teach using wooden casks, and further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use wood with different levels of charring, because Peniche teaches that it is commonly known in the art to age whisky in casks made of different types of woods that had been charred [Peniche, 0003, 0023], in order to enhance the flavor of whisky [Peniche, 0023, 0027], and also because Inui teaches that this would allow an ordinarily skilled artisan to adjust the concentration ratios of aroma and flavor imparting compounds from the wood into the matured beverage [Inui, 0025].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al. [WO2019242631A1], hereinafter Yin, in view of Zhong [CN113061499A], and Sato et al. [US20200056131A1], hereinafter Sato, evidenced by Helen [Brewery equipment, 2021] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inui et al. [US20190223471A1], hereinafter Inui, and Endo et al. [CN102984960A], hereinafter Endo.
Regarding claim 8, modified Yin teaches the process as claimed in claim 1, wherein the primary maturation is achieved using wood in one form (oak barrels/casks, see claim 1 step h discussion above), but does not teach using wood specifically at a concentration of from 0.1-1.0% w/v, at a temperature of from 25-50°C, at an infusion time of from 2 to 16 weeks.
Inui teaches a method of making beer-taste beverages [Inui, 0001], wherein the primary maturation is achieved using different kinds of woods, different level of charring (strength of char), and wood in one or more forms (wooden casks and wood chips and/or wood powders [Inui, 0025, 0032]) and wherein the amount (concentration) of wood may be selected or modified [Inui, 0025]. The maturation temperature in Inui’s method may be from 0-30°C [Inui, 0029] at an infusion time of from 2 to 5 weeks [Inui, 0030].
While Inui does not explicitly recites the wood concentration is of from 0.1-1.0% w/v, Inui does not teaches a lower or upper limit, and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the selection and modification of the wood material amounts in the aging process of the beverage based on the desired amount of flavor to impart with the wood into the beverage product.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include various wood concentrations including the claimed concentrations, the maturation temperature of 0-30°C and infusion time of from 2 to 5 weeks during the maturation step as taught by Inui, in the method of modified Yin, because Inui teaches that the amount of wood may be adjusted/modified in order to adjust the concentration of the aroma and flavor substances (components A-D, aromatic compounds particularly component C which is provided by the wood material) the wood material imparts into the beverage [Inui, 0025]. Further, based on Inui’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the claimed wood concentrations, temperature, and infusion time in the primary maturation during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of modified Yin in view of Inui, based on factors such as the type of woods being used, the charring level of the wood, the amount of wood added to impart flavor, and/or the desired final taste of the beer-taste beverage, which depends on the type of wood and the amount of wood and time the wood is in contact with the beverage to impart the flavor and flavor component C as taught by Inui [Inui, 0025].
Modified Yin in view of Inui teaches the methods and concepts discussed above, but does not explicitly teaches maturation in presence of oxygen environment with pressure up to 0.5 kg/cm2.
Endo teaches methods of making beverages containing cereal degradation products [Endo, 0004], such as fermented malted beverages [Endo, 0076], the method includes a stage where the beverages containing cereal degradation products are stored inside a pressurized tank in the presence of oxygen with pressure of 0.01-0.07 MPa (0.1-0.7 kg/cm2) [Endo, 0095], which is a pressure range that overlaps with the claimed pressure of 0.5 kg/cm2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a step of maturation in presence of oxygen environment with pressures of 0.01-0.07 MPa (0.1-0.7 kg/cm2) as taught by Endo, into the method of modified Yin, because Endo teaches that this provides the advantage of a method that can be carried out in the presence of a gas containing oxygen that is the same composition as the atmosphere, eliminating the need for nitrogen cylinders or the like for supplying nitrogen gas and significantly reducing costs [Endo, 0095].
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al. [WO2019242631A1], hereinafter Yin, in view of Zhong [CN113061499A], and Sato et al. [US20200056131A1], hereinafter Sato, evidenced by Helen [Brewery equipment, 2021] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peniche [US20160097023A1], Inui et al. [US20190223471A1], hereinafter Inui, and Watson et al. [US20100092636A1], hereinafter Watson.
Regarding claim 9, the examiner notes that while all a-d are required there is nothing in the claim that requires any specific ordering nor that any of a-d must be individually met, as such the claims are rejected as below.
Modified Yin teaches the process as claimed in claim 1, including the secondary maturation (see claim 1, step h above, and Yin in view of Zhong), wherein the secondary maturation imparts craft whisky spirits with a characteristic aroma and multiple layers with an array of flavors and the secondary maturation comprises of:
finishing in cask previously used for bourbon or American whisky maturation [Yin, 0046];
but does not teach:
finishing in cask with fusion of American or European oak with varied toasting levels and in one or more forms selected from wood chips, wood powder, wood staves or wood spirals;
Peniche teaches methods for maturation of whisky [Peniche, abstract, 0001], wherein maturation comprises of:
finishing in cask with fusion of American or European oak with varied toasting levels [Peniche, 0022], wherein maturation may be performed in oak barrels having different levels of charring [Peniche, 0027], since Peniche teaches that charring of wood may be performed by heating the wood at a temperature between 600 and 1400 degrees F. for up to generally 10 minutes, or using a direct high intensity flame for up to generally 5 minutes, which would yield wood with different charring levels since a range of different temperatures and times are disclosed, therefore implicitly teaching varied toasting levels; and
Inui teaches a method of making beer-taste beverages [Inui, 0001], wherein the maturation is achieved using different kinds of woods, and varied toasting level (strength of char or level of charring) [Inui, 0025] and in one or more forms such as wood chips and/or wood powders [Inui, 0025, 0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform finishing in cask with fusion of American or European oak as taught by Peniche, with varied toasting levels as implicitly taught by Peniche and explicitly by Inui, and in one or more forms selected from wood chips, wood powder as taught by Inui, in the method of modified Yin, because Peniche teaches that it is commonly known in the art to mature whisky in different types of woods that had been charred [Peniche, 0003, 0022-0023], in order to enhance the flavor of whisky [Peniche, 0022-0023, 0027], and also because Inui teaches that this would allow an ordinarily skilled artisan to select various types/kinds of wood materials in order to adjust/modify concentration ratios of aroma and flavor imparting compounds from the wood into the matured beverage [Inui, 0025].
Modified Yin teaches the methods and concepts of claim 1 and claim 9 steps a-b discussed above, but are silent regarding:
finishing in cask with fusion of one or more varieties of woods selected from cherry, sugar maple or amburana;
using the casks treated or conditioned with fruits, spices, herbs and botanical extracts in liquid creation.
Watson teaches methods for making aged wood flavored alcoholic beverages [Watson, Title], the method comprising;
finishing in cask with fusion of one or more varieties of woods selected from cherry, sugar maple (maple) or amburana [Watson, claim 6, 0017, 0039]; and
using the casks treated or conditioned with fruits, spices, herbs and botanical extracts (vegetable extracts equivalent) in liquid creation (liquid form, oils) [Watson, 0047].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform finishing in cask with fusion of one or more varieties of woods selected from cherry, sugar maple (maple) or amburana, and using the casks treated or conditioned with fruits, spices, herbs and botanical extracts in liquid creation or liquid form as taught by Watson, in the method of modified Yin, because Watson teaches that this would provide a method with the advantage of creating very quickly, an aged, wood flavored, ethanol-containing beverage of less than 3 months, similar to beverages aged 10 to 35 years without losing any volume of product during the method [Watson, abstract, 0001-0002].
Regarding claim 10, modified Yin teaches the process as claimed in claim 1, wherein the craft whisky is further subjected to the process of secondary maturation as in claim 9 to create one or more varieties of flavours (wide variety of flavors) [Watson, 0002].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to subject the craft whisky to a secondary maturation as in claim 9 (as taught by Zhong, see claim 9 above) to create one or more varieties of flavours as taught by Watson, in the method of modified Yin, because Watson teaches that the method is suitable for creating varieties of flavours each having a very smooth drinkability inexpensively, in less than two weeks, with a taste of between 10 and 35 years of aging [Watson, 0002].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jelinek [Top and Bottom fermentation systems and their respective beer characteristics, 1946].
Jelinek teaches that top and bottom fermentations yield products having different flavors [Jelinek, p.174, left column, par.1], i.e., top-fermenting (ale) and bottom-fermenting (lager), where oxygenation increase the number of fermenting cells (i.e., greater fermentative action of aerobic yeast due to multiplication of yeast cells in the presence of oxygen) [Jelinek, p.176, left column, end of par.3]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS EUGENIO DIOU BERDECIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. 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.
/LUIS EUGENIO DIOU BERDECIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights