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 in the reply filed on 8/19/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 7 and 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the content (B)" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "content (B)".
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the carbohydrate content" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "carbohydrate content ".
Clarification and/or correction required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takamasa et al. (JP 2020195318).
Regarding claim 1, Takamasa (‘318) teaches a beer-taste beverage (See Abs.) having: an alcohol content of 1.0 (v/v) % or more and 3.8 (v/v) % or less (See p. 2.), and a content of pyroglutamic acid of 60 mg/L or more (See Abs., p. 4, ll. 19-24, Examples 2-4, 6 and claims with 2% alcohol and pyroglutamic acid of 35 ppm or more.).
Regarding claim 2, Takamasa (‘318) teaches wherein a malt ratio is 50 mass % or more (See Abs.).
Regarding claim 3, Takamasa (‘318) teaches wherein an apparent attenuation is less than 100% (See p. 2, ll. 5-12, p. 5, ll. 8-9, not containing spirits.).
Regarding claim 5, Takamasa (‘318) teaches further comprising at least one acidulant selected from the group consisting of phosphoric acid, citric acid, malic acid, succinic acid, lactic acid, and acetic acid (See p. 8, ll. 8-10.).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamasa et al. (JP 2020195318) in view of Buiatti; Beer Composition: An Overview, Beer in Health and Disease Prevention, pp. 213-225 (2009).
Regarding claim 4, Takamasa (‘318) teaches the beverage discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein a content of isoamyl alcohol is more than 20 mg/L and 190 mg/L or less.
Buiatti (2009) teaches a beverage similar to Takamasa (‘318) wherein isoamyl alcohol is a primary alcohol and used to improve the taste of the beverage (See p. 220, para. 3, Table 20.5, 8-30 mg/L.). It would have been foreseeable and obviously prior the earliest effective filing date with Takamasa (‘318) in view of Buiatti (2009) that Takamasa’s (‘318) beverage would have the claimed amount of isoamyl alcohol to having a beverage of desired taste.
Claim(s) 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamasa et al. (JP 2020195318).
Regarding claim 6, Takamasa (‘318) teaches the beverage discussed above including acidulant and alcohol (See Abs., p. 4, ll. 19-24, p. 8, ll. 8-10, Examples 2-4, 6 and claims.), however, fails to expressly disclose wherein a ratio of a content (B) (unit: mg/L) of the acidulant to the alcohol content (A) (unit: v/v %) is 550 or less.
The claimed ratio is broad and includes virtually all conceivable amounts.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date that Takamasa (‘318) beverage would have the claimed ratio to provide beverage of desired taste profile. The selection of amounts of ingredients would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Takamasa (‘318) teaches the beverage discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the content (B) of the acidulant is from 500 to 2000 mg/L.
The claimed amount is broad and includes virtually all conceivable amounts.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date that Takamasa (‘318) beverage would have the claimed amount to provide beverage of desired taste profile. The selection of amounts of ingredients would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Takamasa (‘318) teaches the beverage discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the content of the at least one acidulant selected from the group consisting of phosphoric acid, citric acid, malic acid, succinic acid, lactic acid, and acetic acid satisfies at least one of the following: a content of phosphoric acid: from 300 to 1200 mg/L; a content of citric acid: from 100 to 900 mg/L; a content of malic acid: from 40 to 800 mg/L; a content of succinic acid: from 10 to 700 mg/L, a content of lactic acid: from 100 to 1000 mg/L; and a content of acetic acid: from 10 to 100 mg/L.
The claimed amount is broad and includes virtually all conceivable amounts.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date that Takamasa (‘318) beverage would have the claimed amount to provide beverage of desired taste profile. The selection of amounts of ingredients would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Takamasa (‘318) teaches the beverage discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the alcohol content is 1.5 (v/v) % or more and 3.3 (v/v) % or less.
The claimed amount is broad and includes virtually all conceivable amounts.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date that Takamasa (‘318) beverage would have the claimed amount to provide beverage of desired taste profile. The selection of amounts of ingredients would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Takamasa (‘318) teaches the beverage discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein a carbohydrate content is 1.0 g/100 mL or more.
The claimed amount is broad and includes virtually all conceivable amounts. There is no difference in carbohydrate content of beers.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date that Takamasa (‘318) beverage would have the claimed amount to provide beverage of desired taste profile. The selection of amounts of ingredients would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, Takamasa (‘318) teaches the beverage discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the carbohydrate content is 2.0 g/100 mL or more.
The claimed amount is broad and includes virtually all conceivable amounts. There is no difference in carbohydrate content of beers.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date that Takamasa (‘318) beverage would have the claimed amount to provide beverage of desired taste profile. The selection of amounts of ingredients would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT T O'HERN whose telephone number is (571)272-6385. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:00 am - 3:30 pm.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
/BRENT T O'HERN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
August 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights