DETAILED ACTION
Background
The amendment dated July 01, 2026 (amendment) amending claims 1 and 5-6 has been entered. Claims 1-6 as filed with the amendment have been examined. In view of the amendment all outstanding objections have been withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Miscellaneous Letter dated July 01, 2026 (Letter) including a reference to Sam has been placed in the file. The reference itself should be cited in an Information Disclosure Statement as set forth in 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Sam F.E.; Ma, T.-Z.; Salifu, R.; Wang, J.; Jiang, Y.-M.; Zhang, B.; Han, S.-Y., "Techniques for Dealcoholization of Wines: Their Impact on Wine Phenolic Composition, Volatile Composition, and Sensory Characteristics," Foods, 2021, Vol. 10, Article No. 2498, published October 18, 2021,https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11002498 (Sam) was not properly made of record.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2021061775 A to Murano (Murano)
Unless otherwise disclosed, all percents (%) are interpreted as weight %s (wt%); and, a wt% is interpreted as interchangeable with a vol% or v/v% and a mass%; further, unless otherwise disclosed a gram, is interpreted as equivalent to a ml and a kg is interpreted as equivalent to a litre.
Unless otherwise disclosed, all measurements of beverages are interpreted as taking place at room temperature or about 20 °C.
All references to Murano refer to its Clarivate machine translation, a copy of which is included with this Office action.
Regarding instant claims 1-2 and 6, Murano at the Abstract on page 1 discloses a wine flavor fruit drink (“wine flavor beverage”) having a wine-like rich taste and moderate astringency and a method of producing it (claim 6). In weight (wt.%), the wine flavor beverage discloses adding phytic acid concentration in an amount expressed as A, a citric acid in an amount expressed as B, and a tartaric acid in an amount expressed as C as a total acidity of 0.25≤D≤0.35 wt% or 0.25 to 0.45 g/100 ml (claims 1-2 and 6). Further, Murano discloses at the last paragraph of page 2 a "wine-flavored fruit beverage" an method for making that is a fruit beverage having a wine-like flavor, which is made only from a wine flavor. Further, Murano at page 4, middle of the page (starting with “[Manufacturing method…]” discloses methods of making the wine flavor beverage by mixing a grape juice drink with the various acids (“method for enhancing wine-like full body of a wine flavor beverage …the method comprising the step of mixing ingredients” as in claim 6).
The Office considers the claimed wine flavor beverage having an alcohol content of 0.00 v/v% to include the wine flavor beverage of Murano comprising acidifier, fruit juice and wine flavor.
Further and regarding instant claim 3, Murano does not disclose the sodium content of its wine flavor beverage, or disclose that its wine flavor beverage has a sodium content of 70 to 950 mg/kg as in claims 1 and 6; and, further Murano does not disclose a sodium content of 100 to 850 mg/kg in its wine flavor beverage as in claim 3. However, Murano at page 3, 2nd full paragraph discloses citric acid as sodium citrate, also known as trisodium citrate and (at page 7, 2nd line) discloses beverages having from 0 to 0.216 wt% of citric acid or sodium citrate (258 g/mole), or from 0 to 745 mg/kg sodium (calculated in the following paragraph), which the claimed 70 to 950 mg/kg in claims 1 and 6 overlaps, and, further which the claimed sodium content of 100 to 850 mg/kg in claim 3 overlaps. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", the Office considers that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.I. It would have been obvious in Murano to use the claimed amounts of sodium in the form of sodium citrate as the citric acid in its wine flavor beverage because Murano discloses using the claimed amount of sodium in sodium citrate to make a desirable wine flavor beverage.
The 0-0.216 g/100 ml disclosed in Murano converts to an amount in g of sodium in 0.216 g of sodium citrate, determined by calculating as follows: There is a maximum of 89 wt% sodium out of 258 g/mole or ((89/258) X 0.216 g or) 0.0745 wt% (745 ppm or mg/kg) sodium in 0.216 g of sodium citrate; and, the wine flavor beverage of Murano comprises up to 745 mg/kg sodium.
Regarding instant claims 4-5, the wine flavor beverage formulation disclosed in Murano at page 4, middle of the page (starting with “[Manufacturing method…]” discloses methods and compositions that do not contain added magnesium. The Office considers the claimed wine flavor beverage wherein the beverage has a magnesium content of 50 mg.kg or less to include the wine flavor beverage disclosed in Murano at page 4, middle of the page as in claim 4; further, the weight ratio of sodium to magnesium in the wine flavor beverage disclosed in Murano on page 4 is more than 10:1 as in claim 5.
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendment dated July 01, 2026, the following rejections are withdrawn as moot:
The rejections of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN108402353 A to Lai et al.; and,
The rejections of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN110093236 A to Huang et al. , as evidenced by Durig et al., Handbook of Pharmaceutical Wet Granulation, 2019 Elsevier Inc. Ch.9, p. 317-349 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-810460-6.00010-5.
The positions taken with respect to claims 1-6 and the Lai and Huang references have been considered but are found moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any argument as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the positions taken in the remarks accompanying the amendment dated July 01, 2026 (Reply), the remarks have been fully considered but are not found persuasive for the following reasons:
The Sam reference (Sam, F.E.; Ma, T.-Z.; Salifu, R.; Wang, J.; Jiang, Y.-M.; Zhang, B.; Han, S.-Y., "Techniques for Dealcoholization of Wines: Their Impact on Wine Phenolic Composition, Volatile Composition, and Sensory Characteristics," Foods, 2021, Vol. 10, Article No. 2498, published October 18, 2021,https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11002498 (Sam), offered in the Miscellaneous Letter dated July 01, 2026 is not relevant to any outstanding rejection. Further, the Office has not considered the relevance of Sam as prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
FR2671355 A1 to Migros Federation Cooperatives (Migros) discloses at Abstract on page 1 (Clarivate machine translation, a copy of which is included with this Office action), discloses a dealcoholized wine beverage and a method of making it wherein a wine is concentrated and is reconstituted to yield a wine flavor beverage. At page 7, 2nd full paragraph (starting with “p/ Modification”) and 3rd full paragraph, Migros discloses the dealcoholized wine having an alcohol content 0.02% by weight. At the paragraph bridging pages 8-9, Migros discloses NaH tartrate acidity in the beverage and as part of the added grape juice concentrate.
DATA BASE GNPD[Online] MINTEL; "Alcohol Free Rose Wine", XP093332754, 2020, (Rose wine) at page 1 discloses an alcohol free rose. At page 2, Rose Wine discloses that its wine flavor beverage has a sodium content of 0.37 wt% or 370 mg/kg, and comprises dealcoholized wine, grape juice concentrate, vitamin C as preservative, antioxidant and thickener.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANDREW E MERRIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-H 8:00A-5:30P and alternate Fridays 8:30A-5P.
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 H Dees can be reached at (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.
/ANDREW E MERRIAM/Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights