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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 55-59) in the reply filed on 08 July 2026 is acknowledged.
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) 55-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randhava et al. (herein referred to as Randhava, WO 2006113700 A1) in view of Romano et al. (herein referred to as Romano, US 20070237870 A1), Hideki et al (herein referred to as Hideki, EP 2377916 A1), and Ariga et al. (herein referred to as Ariga, US 5773262 A)
With regard to Claim 55, Randhava teaches a method comprising obtaining a grape material containing grape skin ([0029]). Randhava teaches freezing the grape material and subsequently thawing the grape material ([0030]).
Randhava teaches the thawed grape material can be further processed ([0032]). But is silent to drying the grape material and the grape material being white wine grapes.
Romano teaches a method for producing a freeze-dried grape powder ([0010]). Romano teaches using white wine grapes ([0015]) and after a freezing treatment, freeze-drying the white wine grapes to product a substantially dried product ([0010], [0024]). Romano’s method is advantageous because the grape powder produced is suitable for consumption in a variety of formats ([0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Randhava to utilize freeze-drying as taught by Romano after thawing the grapes to produce a grape powder that is suitable for consumption in a variety of formats.
In addition, Romano imparts reasoning for obviousness because the teaching shows that the claimed white wine grapes were known for such a thing to have been successfully achieved and published at the time of filing, which means it was within the general skill of one with ordinary skill in the art to select white wine grapes because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP 2144.07 that discussed that when the prior art recognizes something is suitable for a similar intended use/purpose, such a thing is obvious.
The combination of Randhava and Romano is silent to the utilizing the skin of the white wine grapes having the flesh and the juice components substantially removed.
Hideki teaches a method for preparing a composition comprising grape skin concentration comprising obtaining skin of white wine grapes, such skin having flesh and juice components removed ([0002], [0023]).
Therefore, Hideki imparts reasoning for obviousness because the teaching shows that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select white wine grape fruit skins with the flesh and juice components removed to create a grape concentrate because Hideki shows it has been successfully achieved and published at the time of filing and thus obvious to one of skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP 2144.07 that discussed that when the prior art recognizes something is suitable for a similar intended use/purpose, such a thing is obvious.
Lastly, the combination of Randhava, Romano, and Hideki are silent to combining the grape skin concentrate with one or more hops, one or more hops components, one or more yeast, one or more bacteria, and/or one or more enzymes
Ariga teaches a method for producing a extract from grape skins (abstract, Col 1 lines 60-61). Ariga teaches adding yeast to the extract for fermentation to produce proanthocyanidin products which a strong antioxidative activity (Col 1 lines 20-24, Col 2 lines 6-8 lines 20-25)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add yeast the grape skin concentrate taught by the combination of Randhava, Romano, and Hideki to produce a proanthocyanidin products which a strong antioxidative activity.
With regard to Claim 56, Randhava is silent to the white wine grapes are selected from the group consisting of: Sauvignon Blanc, Albarino, Chenin Blanc, Colombard, Friulano, Tocai, Gruner Veltliner, Traminer, Verdicchio, Verdejo, Vermentino, Scheurebe, Maccabeo, Gewurztraminer, Riesling, Muscat, Petit Manseng, Pinot Gris, and Tokay grapes, and any combination thereof.
Romano teaches using white wine grapes wherein the white wine grapes comprise Sauvignon Blanc grapes ([0014]-[0015]).
Therefore, Romano imparts reasoning for obviousness because the teaching shows that the claims white wine sauvignon blanc grapes were known for such a thing to have been successfully achieved and published at the time of filing, which means it was within the general skill of one with ordinary skill in the art to select white wine sauvignon blanc grapes because it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP 2144.07 that discussed that when the prior art recognizes something is suitable for a similar intended use/purpose, such a thing is obvious.
With regard to Claim 57, Randhava teaches the thawed grape material can be further processed ([0032]). But is silent to drying the grape material wherein the drying comprises freeze drying.
Romano teaches a method for producing a freeze-dried grape powder ([0010]). Romano teaches using white wine grapes ([0015]) and after a freezing treatment, freeze-drying the white wine grapes to product a substantially dried product ([0010], [0024]). Romano’s method is advantageous because the grape powder produced is suitable for consumption in a variety of formats ([0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Randhava to utilize freeze-drying as taught by Romano after thawing the grapes to produce a grape powder that is suitable for consumption in a variety of formats.
With regard to Claim 58, Randhava is silent to the dried product being mixed with one or more liquids to obtain a liquid or semi-liquid product.
Romano teaches mixing the dried product with liquid for consumption as a beverage ([0026]-[0027]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Randhava in view of Romano to add liquid to the dried product to allow the powder to be consumed as a beverage.
With regard to Claim 59, Randhava is silent to the one or more yeast are selected from the group consisting of: Saccharomyces, Brettanomyces, Kloeckera, Candida, Hanseniaspora, Pichia yeast, and any combination thereof
Ariga teaches a method for producing an extract from grape skins (abstract, Col 1 lines 60-61). Ariga teaches adding yeast to the extract for fermentation to produce proanthocyanidin products which a strong antioxidative activity (Col 1 lines 20-24, Col 2 lines 6-8 lines 20-25). Ariga teaches the yeast is belonging to the genera Saccharomyces (Col 2 lines 6-10).
Therefore, Ariga imparts reasoning for obviousness because the teaching shows that the claimed yeast from the genera Saccharomyces were known for such a thing to have been successfully achieved and published at the time of filing, which means it was within the general skill of one with ordinary skill in the art to select yeast from the genera Saccharomyces because it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP 2144.07 that discussed that when the prior art recognizes something is suitable for a similar intended use/purpose, such a thing is obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA I DIVIESTI whose telephone number is (571)270-0787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm (MST).
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.
/K.I.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights