DETAILED ACTION
Background
The amendment dated August 03, 2026 (amendment) amending claims 1, 2, 5 and 7 and canceling claims 4 and 6 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5 and 7 as filed with the amendment have been examined.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2018085967 A to Kikuma et al. (Kikuma).
Unless otherwise indicated, all references to Kikuma refer to its Clarivate machine translation, a copy of which is included with this Office action.
Regarding instant claims 1-3, Kikuma discloses at Abstract on page 1 a bottled alcoholic beverage (“packaged alcoholic-beverage”) reduced in astringency in which the concentration of sodium is 3.5 to 80 mg/100 mL and the concentration of phosphoric acid (“acidity in terms of citric acid”) is 0.005 to 0.05 w/v%. Specifically, at “(4) Astringent taste reduction effect” on page 3 and the accompanying Table 4 in the Japanese language publication Kikuma discloses in Examples 38-39 a carbonated (claim 3), gin-containing alcoholic-beverage comprising polydextrose as a polysaccharide and 0 (Ex 38) or 0.253 (w/v% or g/100 ml) of a phosphoric acid, wherein the alcoholic beverage has an alcohol content of 9 wt%, based on the total volume of the alcoholic beverage (claim 2).
The Office considers the alcoholic beverage of Examples 38-39 of Kikuma and the packaged alcoholic-beverage claimed to be substantially the same thing. Accordingly, absent a clear showing as to how the pH and sweetness of the packaged alcoholic-beverage of Kikuma differs from that of the packaged alcoholic-beverage as claimed, the Office considers the packaged alcoholic-beverage of Examples 38 and 39 of Kikuma to have the claimed pH of 3.0 or more and less than 5.0 and a degree of sweetness of 2 or less as in claim 1 . See MPEP 2112.01.I.
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 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2018085967 A to Kikuma et al. (Kikuma) as applied to claim 1, above and further in view of US2010/0119667 of Livaich (Livaich).
All references to Kikuma refer to its Clarivate machine translation.
As applied to claim 1, Kikuma at Abstract and Examples 38 and 39 discloses a gin-containing packaged alcoholic-beverage comprising a polysaccharides elected from the group consisting of dextrin, polydextrose, and indigestible glucan and having a degree of sweetness of 2 or less, a pH of 3.0 or more and less than 5.0 and an acidity in terms of citric acid of 0.05 g/100 ml or less.
Kikuma does not disclose an example of an alcoholic beverage comprising a polysaccharide in the amount of 2.5 wt% or less, based on the total weight of the alcoholic beverage as in claim 5 and does not disclose as a polysaccharide a dextrin as in claim 7. However, Kikuma discloses in Background Art on page 2 that its sodium acts to thicken or impart a body feel to an alcoholic beverage and discloses that amount of sodium as 3.5 to 80 mg/100 mL or 0.0035 to 0.08 wt%, based on the total weight of the alcoholic beverage
Livaich at Abstract discloses a ready-to drink alcoholic beverage having an alcohol content of about 5 to about 9 wt%, by volume, including at Example 2 and [0068] a gin and tonic cocktail comprising sodium salts and citric acid. Further, at [0032] Livaich discloses maltodextrin or polydextrose as a hydrocolloid akin to a gum or starch to improve the body and mouthfeel of the alcoholic beverage. Livaich does not give an amount of its thickener.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Livaich for Kikuma to include a dextrin or use the polydextrose of Kikuma and to include the polysaccharide in the amount of to thicken or impart body to the alcoholic beverage alcoholic beverage having the recited acidity in terms of citric acid of 0.05 g/100 ml or less in terms of citric acid and an alcohol content 1 to 16 v/v%, based on the total volume of the alcoholic beverage. Livaich discloses that it is desirable for its alcoholic beverages to comprise a dextrin, polydextrose or indigestible glucan in the amount of 2,5 wt% or less, based on the total weight of the alcoholic beverage. Both references disclose packaged alcoholic-beverages comprising sodium and a polysaccharide wherein the alcoholic beverages are gin drinks. The ordinary skilled artisan in Kikuma would have desired to use its polydextrose or the dextrin of Livaich in amounts of less than 2.5 wt%, based on the total weight of the alcoholic beverage to provide a suitable thickener to limit the amount of sodium needed in the alcoholic beverage while giving it a desirable body or improved mouthfeel.
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendment dated August 03, 2026, the following rejections have been withdrawn as moot:
The provisional rejections of claims 1-3 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 5-7 of copending Application No. 18/724,793 (reference application) in view of JP2018-126118 A to Kanazawa;
The rejections of claims 2 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in regard to the claim 2 recited alcohol content in v/v% as lacking a basis or denominator for the volume %; and, further in regard to the claim 5 recited polysaccharide content in wt% for lacking a basis or denominator for the wt%;
The rejections of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2018-126118 A to Kanazawa; and,
The rejections of claims 4-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2018-126118 A to Kanazawa in view of EP2365762 b1 to Debon et al.
The positions taken in the remarks accompanying the amendment dated August 03, 2026 (Reply) have been fully considered but are moot because the rejection does not rely on the Kanazawa or Debon art for any position taken or matter alleged in the Reply.
Conclusion
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