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 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.
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 1-6, 12-14 and 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over references to Saerens (20160010042A1), hereinafter Saerens, In view of IDS reference to DE102014015392A1 to Frankl, hereinafter Frankl (machine translation provided with the office action).
Note para # of Frankl cited are the para # of the translation.
Claims are directed to method of producing a reduced alcohol or alcohol free beverage where the fermentation is by utilizing a maltose-negative yeast strain to produce a low alcohol beverage followed by dealcoholization the obtained low alcohol beverage to remove as much alcohol from it as desired.
Regarding claims 1 Saerens teaches a method of producing a beverage comprising the steps of: (a) fermenting a wort with a culture comprising a maltose-negative yeast strain (Abstract and Pichia Kluyveri, which is maltose-negative yeast strain), to obtain a fermented beverage having an alcohol content of less than 1.00% v/v (Para 35-36 and 39, 57-58 and specially para 81 and 91, figures 2 and 3 where Pichia Kluyveri strain produced alcohol content of 0.5 and 0.7 is taught).
Regarding step of dealcoholization, Saerens para 131 teaches that dealcoholization to modify beer alcohol content was known as recited in step (b) but Saerens does not specifically teach a method of dealcoholization by “subjecting the fermented beverage to a thermal dealcoholization step at a temperature of 20 to 80° C. to obtain the beverage” as recited in claim 1. However, the step of thermal dealcoholization step at a temperature of 20 to 80° C. was known and taught by Frankl (in para # 4 of translation), where Frankl teaches that a process for the dealcoholization of beer in which the alcohol is evaporated at pressures between 125 and 160 hPa and a temperature of the beer of 56 ° C. was known to Frankl., where the teaching that “alcohol is evaporated” refers to a thermal process and temperature of dealcoholization of 56° C falls in the claimed range of 20 to 80° C. Thus, dealcoholization methods as claimed was known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the step of alcohol reduction of fermented beverage as taught by Saerens to a thermal dealcoholization step at a temperature of 20 to 80° C, at least for the purpose of removing the alcohol from the 1% alcohol beer or fermented beverage and obtaining an alcohol free beverage. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Saerens at least for the purpose of creating a beer or a fermented beverage for consumers that want the flavor notes of fermented beverage like beer but do not want any alcohol associated with said fermented beverage or beer.
Regarding claim 2 Saerens teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the alcohol content of the fermented beverage obtained in step (a) is less than 0.8% v/v (Saerens Para 3 discloses "alcohol-free beers containing no more than 0.5% (vol/vol) alcohol " and " para 21 citing Figure 3 which shows that “beers produced with Pichia kluyveri strain A (0.1% (vol/vol) alcohol”), which falls in claimed alcohol content of less than 0.8% v/v.
Regarding claim 3 Saerens teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the maltose-negative yeast strain is a sucrose-negative yeast strain. (Saerens Para 9 teaches Pichia kluyveri yeast strains, that is only capable of fermenting the glucose in beer wort " and Para 19 which refers to Figure 1 and teaches "beer brewing process for Pichia kluyveri beer "). Thus, Saerens teaches Pichia kluyveri yeast, which is a sucrose-negative yeast strain.
Regarding claim 4 Saerens teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the maltose-negative yeast strain comprises one or more strains of one or more species selected from the group consisting of strains of Pichia kluyveri, Pichia fermentans, Zygosaccharomyces lentus, Torulaspora delbrueckii, Candida zemplinina, Zygosaccharomyces rouxii, Hanseniaspora valbyensis, Hanseniaspora vineae, Zygosaccharomyces bailii, Zygosaccharomyces kombuchaensis, Kazachstania servazzii, Cyberlindnera mrakii, Cyberlindnera saturnus, Cyberlindnera misumaiensis, Trigonopsis cantarellii, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and Saccharomycodes ludwigii ( Saerens para 9 discloses " Pichia kluyveri ", para 93 teaches that it was known to brew with Saccharomyces cerevisiae and how the brewed product differs from the product brewed with Pichia kluyveri. Similarly figures 6-9 and para 24-27 and para 96- 115 where Saerens brewing with Saccharomycodes ludwigii and its differences with Pichia kluyveri).
Regarding claim 5 Saerens teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein the maltose-negative yeast strain comprises one or more strains selected from Pichia kluyveri DSM 28484, Pichia kluyveri PK-KR1 (JT1.28), Pichia kluyveri PK-KR2 (JT3.71) and , and Torulaspora delbrueckii DSM 33529 (Saerens para 48 discloses "preferred embodiment the at least one Pichia kluyveri yeast strain is selected from the group consisting of the Pichia kluyveri PK-KR1 (JT1.28; strain A) " and also “Pichia kluyveri PK-KR2 (JT3.71 "), both fall in the claimed list.
Regarding claim 6 Saerens as applied above in view of Frankl teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the thermal dealcoholization in step (b) is performed at a temperature of 20 to 60° C. Frankl (in para # 4 of translation), where Frankl teaches that a process for the dealcoholization of beer in which the alcohol is evaporated at pressures between 125 and 160 hPa and a temperature of the beer of 56 ° C. was known to Frankl., where the teaching that “alcohol is evaporated” refers to a thermal process and temperature of dealcoholization of 56° C falls in the claimed range of 20 to 60° C.
Regarding claim 12 Saerens teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the beverage obtained in step (b) has an alcohol content of less than 0.5% v/v, (Saerens Para 3 discloses "alcohol-free beers containing no more than 0.5% (vol/vol) alcohol " and " para 21 citing Figure 3 which shows that “beers produced with Pichia kluyveri strain A (0.1% (vol/vol) alcohol”), which falls in claimed alcohol content of less than 0.5% v/v.
Regarding claim 13 Saerens teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the beverage is a beer ( Saerens title abstract and the entire document teaches beer especially para 19 and 20 that describe figures and para discloses beer process and product obtained also see para 49 and 50 for description of beer).
Regarding claim 14 Saerens teaches a beverage obtained by the method according to claim 1, comprising said maltose-negative yeast strain (Saerens para 9 and 48 and 19 teaches Pichia kluyveri yeast, which is a maltose- negative yeast strain). Also see rejection of claims 3 and 4 above.
Regarding claim 16 Saerens teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the maltose-negative yeast strain is a sucrose-negative saccharomyces yeast strain.
(Saerens teaches maltose negative strains: para 9 discloses " Pichia kluyveri ", but para 93 teaches that it was known to brew with Saccharomyces cerevisiae and how the brewed product differs from the product brewed with Pichia kluyveri. Similarly figures 6-9 and para 24-27 and para 96- 115 where Saerens brewing with Saccharomycodes ludwigii and its differences with Pichia kluyveri).
Regarding claim 17 Saerens teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the maltose-negative yeast strain is a sucrose-negative non-saccharomyces yeast strain(Saerens para 9, 48 and 19 teaches Pichia kluyveri yeast, which is sucrose- negative yeast strain).
Regarding claim 19 Saerens teaches a method according to claim 1of producing a beverage, wherein the beverage is alcohol-free beer (title and abstract of Saerens, also see para 18 where Saerens teaches “use of a Pichia kluyveri yeast strain for preparing low-alcohol or alcohol-free beverage”).
Claims 7-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saerens and IDS reference to Frankl (machine translation provided with the office action), as applied to 1 above, further in view of Kuijpers (WO 2021034191 A1), hereinafter Kuijpers and NPL to Luigi Montanari et al. “Production of alcohol -Free beer”, Elsevier 2009, obtained from Beer in Health and disease, pages 61-75, hereinafter Monatari.
Regarding claims 7-11 and 18 Saerens in view of Frankl as applied above teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the thermal dealcoholization in step (b) is performed (see rejection of claim 1, where Frankl translation para 4 is cited to teach thermal dealcoholization). Saerens and Frankl do not specify any specific dealcoholization method, as instantly claimed “a vacuum rectification column, a thin film evaporator, a stripping column, or a spinning cone column” (claim 7) and “thermal dealcoholization in step (b) comprises vacuum stripping or vacuum rectification.” (claim 18), nor do the applied art to Saerens and Frankl teach the process and temperature , flow and vacuum conditions for rectification or vacuum stripping, as recited in claims 8-11.
However, methods of dealcoholization as recited in claims 7-11 and 18 were well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as taught by Monatari (entire article, specially Page 63, Figure 6.1, Table 6.2, page 67 column 2, through pages 68-69- columns 1-2 and Table 6.6 to page 70, line 5) and Kuijpers (entire document, specially page 1 and page 12).
Monatari is pertinent as it teaches various approaches to dealcoholize beer, including vacuum rectification (Page 63 and 68 as cited above).
Kuijpers is pertinent art as it falls in the same field as Saerens, i.e., alcohol free beer and methods of producing alcohol-free beer. Kuijpers (Page 1, lines 17-21) teach dealcoholization. Regarding claims 7 and 18, Kuijpers teaches that “De-alcoholisation of beer is performed on regularly brewed beer, and is designed to remove ethanol,.. De- alcoholisation may be achieved by for instance rectification, reverse osmosis or dialysis of regular beer”. Further Kuijpers also teaches that “Rectification is usually performed under reduced pressure to achieve boiling of the volatile ethanol at a temperature that does not result in breakdown of other ingredients such as proteins and sugars. Said rectification preferably is performed after fermentation at an elevated temperature at 20-50 °C under reduced pressure. Methods for vacuum rectification to reduce alcohol levels have been described e.g. by Narziss et al. 1993. Brauwelt 133: 1806-1820, and Kern 1994.” ( see Kuijper Page 12, lines 21 -26) Thus, rectification methods, including “vacuum rectification” as recited in claims 7 and 18 were well known in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention as methods employed after fermentation to reduce the ethanol content or eliminate all the ethanol from the fermented beer/ beverage, as taught by Manatari, pages 63 and 68 and Kuijpers (Page 1, lines 17-21 and page 12, lines 21-26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include rectification method of vacuum rectification as instantly claimed. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify vacuum rectification at least for the purpose of reducing the alcohol content while achieving boiling of volatile ethanol at a temperature that does not result in breakdown of other ingredients such as proteins and sugars as taught by Kuijpers (Page 12, lines 21-26).
Regarding claim 8 Saerens teaches the method according to claim 1, but is silent regarding the thermal dealcoholization in step (b) is performed at a pressure of less than 40 kPa. Monatari article as applied above for claims 7 and 18, also teaches reduced pressure conditions. Monatari, page 68, columns 1-2 teaches dealcoholization , especially vacuum rectification, where the pressure conditions vary, such as, pressure conditions for dealcoholizing beer as shown in Table 6.6 include 60 and 150 millibar, i.e., 6 and 15 kPa, where both pressure measures fall in the claimed range of pressure of less than 40 kPa.
Similarly regarding claim 9, for the thermal dealcoholization in step (b) comprises vacuum rectification, wherein the vacuum rectification is performed in a vessel having a first end and a second end, wherein the fermented beverage obtained in step (a) is fed into the vessel as a liquid at the first end and a vapor stream is fed into the vessel at the second end, wherein the vapor flows through the vessel in countercurrent to the liquid fermented beverage and the vapor contacts the fermented beverage (NPL article page 68 teaches dealcoholization on page 68 especially vacuum rectification and the process of dealcoholization by continuous vacuum rectification, including the claimed steps is clearly taught). Thus, adjusting the rectification process conditions within the claimed parameters, as taught by Monatari would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify vacuum rectification at least for the purpose of reducing the alcohol content while achieving boiling of volatile ethanol at a temperature that does not result in breakdown of other ingredients such as proteins and sugars as taught by Kuijpers (Page 12, lines 21-26).
Further, Regarding claims 10 and 11Monatari teaches wherein the thermal dealcoholization of step b) in pages 67-70 as pointed above, on page 68, the pressure conditions for counter current vacuum rectificatoion as well as for the thin layer evaporations. The NPL reference does not specify the conditions of “thermal dealcoholization in step (b) is performed at a vapor flow rate of 5 to 50 kgh.sup.−1” and also do not disclose the “step (b) is performed at a vapor back-pressure of 50 to 350 kPa”. The flow rate and counter pressure are results effective variables in the process of thermal rectification. In thermal dealcoholization processes, that involve heating to evaporate alcohol and cooling the alcohol free beer. Rectification under reduced pressure is done at pressures I the claimed range, but the degree of vacuum and pressure reduction is affected by the alcohol content of initial beer and the volume of beer flowing per unit time through the rectification equipment, i.e., the flow rate. This means that the higher the initial beers alcohol content or the greater the volume of beer to be dealcoholized, the faster the rectifier needs to evaporate alcohol, which in turn means, the greater vacuum needs to be created and the greater the counterpressure to keep the rectifier working continuously and producing even output of dealcoholized beer. Thus, based on the initial alcohol content and volume of product to be dealcoholized, the size of rectification column, it would be obvious to adjust the temperature and vacuum conditions of the rectification column such that the flow rate and vapor back pressure falls in the claimed range.
Adjusting the process parameters to keep the rectification unit performing uniformly and with minimal energy wastage would have been well within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. The ordinary artisan would have also been motivated to modify vacuum rectification at least for the purpose of reducing the alcohol content while achieving boiling of volatile ethanol at a temperature that does not result in breakdown of other ingredients such as proteins and sugars as taught by Kuijpers (Page 12, lines 21-26).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTI CHAWLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30- 5:30.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached on 571-270-3435. 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.
/JYOTI CHAWLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights