DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The status of the claims stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1-16
Withdrawn claims: 15-16
Claims currently under consideration: 1-14
Currently rejected claims: 1-14
Allowed claims: None
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-14) in the reply filed on 08/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II-III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/25/2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“a content of T-VDK” should be read as “a content of total vicinal diketones (T-VDK)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 3 recites that the beverage comprises saccharides (A1) that are selected from the group consisting of maltose and maltotriose; and that a total content of the saccharides (A1) is 0.05-2.40 w/v%. However, claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, recites that the beverage comprises saccharides (A) from a list which includes maltose and maltotriose, wherein the total content of the saccharides (A) is at least 0.07 w/v%. It is unclear as to whether saccharides (A1) is meant as a list of saccharides separate from the list of saccharides (A); or that saccharides (A1) is meant to recite a subset/narrower list of options of the saccharides of (A). It is also unclear as to whether the beverage is meant to comprise a saccharide (A) that is different than those listed in saccharide (A1) as the minimum amount of saccharide (A1) is lower than the minimum amount of saccharide (A). Therefore, claim 3 is indefinite.
For the purpose of this examination, claim 3 will be interpreted as meaning that the beverage comprises maltose and/or maltotriose in an amount from 0.05-2.40 w/v% and that the beverage further comprises glucose, sucrose, isomaltose, and/or isomaltotriose in amounts which would bring the total amount of (1) glucose, sucrose, isomaltose, and/or isomaltotriose and (2) maltose and/or maltotriose (i.e., total amount of (1) and (2)) to at least 0.07 w/v%.
Claim 4 is rejected by reason of dependency from claim 3.
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.
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 1-4, 8-9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takasumi (JP 2018191537A; English translation relied on for citations; previously cited).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 12, 13, and 14, Takasumi teaches a beer-taste beverage that may have an alcohol content of 1.0-4.0 v/v% (page 2, lines 31-35), which falls within the alcohol content ranges recited in present claims 1, 12, 13, and 14. Takasumi teaches that the beverage may have a linalool content of 1-40 µg/L (page 3, line 19), which falls within the linalool content range recited in present claim 1. Takasumi teaches that the beverage may contain monosaccharides in combination with disaccharides (corresponding to a sugar having a polymerization degree of 2) and/or trisaccharides (corresponding to a sugar having a degree of polymerization of 3), wherein the monosaccharide may be glucose; the disaccharide may be sucrose, maltose and/or isomaltose; and the trisaccharide may be maltotriose, and isomaltotriose (page 4, lines 9-16). Takasumi teaches that the combined amounts of monosaccharide and di- and/or trisaccharides may be 0.1-1 w/v% (corresponding to 0.1 g/100 mL or more and 1.0 g/100 mL or less) (page 3, lines 1-7), thereby at least suggesting that the content of glucose, sucrose, maltose, isomaltose, maltotriose, and/or isomaltotriose may be 0.1-1 w/v%, which falls within the claimed content range recited in present claims 1 and 2.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Takasumi teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the beer-taste beverage may comprise monosaccharides in combination with disaccharides and/or trisaccharides, wherein the monosaccharide may be glucose; the disaccharide may be sucrose, maltose and/or isomaltose; and the trisaccharide may be maltotriose, and isomaltotriose (page 4, lines 9-16). Takasumi teaches that the combined amounts of monosaccharide and di- and/or trisaccharides may be 0.1-1 w/v% (page 3, lines 1-7), thereby at least suggesting that the content of glucose, sucrose, maltose, isomaltose, maltotriose, and/or isomaltotriose may be 0.1-1 w/v%. Therefore, an amount of each of glucose, sucrose, maltose, isomaltose, maltotriose, and isomaltotriose in the beverage may be from an amount greater than 0 w/v% to 1 w/v%, thereby providing a total content range for maltose and/or maltotriose which overlaps the content ranges recited in present claims 3 and 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any portions of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art references, particularly in view of the fact that; "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages" In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549,533 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 8, Takasumi teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the total amount of glucose, sucrose, maltose, isomaltose, maltotriose, and/or isomaltotriose in the beer-taste beverage may be 0.1-1 w/v% (page 3, lines 1-7; page 4, lines 9-16). Takasumi teaches that beer-taste beverage may have an alcohol content of 1.0-4.0 v/v% (page 2, lines 31-35). These values provide a ratio of alcohol content in v/v% to saccharides (A) content of w/v% of 1-40, which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 9, Takasumi teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the total amount of glucose, sucrose, maltose, isomaltose, maltotriose, and/or isomaltotriose in the beer-taste beverage may be 0.1-1 w/v% (page 3, lines 1-7; page 4, lines 9-16). Takasumi teaches that the beverage may have a linalool content of 1-40 µg/L (page 3, line 19). These values provide a ratio of linalool content in µg/L to saccharide (A) content in w/v% of 1-400, which overlaps the claimed range. The selection of a value within the overlapping range renders the claimed ratio obvious. MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 11, Takasumi teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including a malt proportion of the raw material for producing the beer is at least 50 mass% (page 3, lines 42-44), which falls within the claimed range.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takasumi (JP 2018191537A; English translation relied on for citations; previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Buchi (“Vicinal Diketones in Beer”, February 2022, Buchi, https://www.buchi.com/en/knowledge/applications/vicinal-diketones-beer).
Regarding claim 5, Takasumi teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the beer-taste beverage is produced through fermentation by yeast (page 5, lines 25-29). Takasumi does not teach that the beer-taste beverage has a total vicinal diketones (T-VDK) content of less than or equal to 0.300 mass ppm.
However, Buchi teaches that the vicinal diketones (VDK) diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione are produced during beer fermentation by yeast and that the presence of diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione above their taste thresholds can lead to an undesired butter/butterscotch flavor in the beer (paragraph). Buchi teaches that the taste threshold for diacetyl is about 0.1 mg/L; and that the taste threshold for 2,3-pentandione is about 1.0 mg/L (paragraph). These amounts are considered to equate to about 1.1 mass ppm so that Buchi teaches a T-DVK in a beer-taste beverage below about 1.1 mass ppm is desirable, which encompasses the claimed T-VDK content range. The selection of a value within the encompassing range renders the claimed ratio obvious. MPEP 2144.05.I.
It would have been obvious for person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to have modified the beer-taste beverage of Takasumi to have a T-VDK content of less than about 1.1 mass ppm as taught by Buchi. Since Takasumi teaches that its beverage has a beer taste and that its beverage is produced by yeast fermentation which produces VDK, but Takasumi does not disclose a suitable content of T-VDK in the beverage, a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to consult an additional reference such as Buchi in order to determine a suitable T-VDK content for a beverage having a beer taste. Therefore, the claimed T-VDK content is rendered obvious.
Claims 6-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takasumi (JP 2018191537A; English translation relied on for citations; previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beervana (“Bittering Units- Measuring Hoppiness”, 2006, Beervana Blog, https://www.beervanablog.com/beervana/2006/03/bittering-units-measuring-hoppiness.html).
Regarding claims 6, 7, and 10, Takasumi teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the beer-taste beverage is produced through fermentation of hops (page 5, lines 25-29, 50-51). Takasumi does not teach that the beverage has a bitterness value within the ranges recited in present claims 6 and 7; or that the beverage has a ratio of bitterness value in BUs to total content of saccharides (A) in w/v% within the range recited in present claim 10.
However, Beervana teaches that hops are added to beer for bittering the beer (page 1, paragraph under “What Hops Do”). Beervana teaches that a beer beverage having a bitterness value of 10-15 BUs will have almost no perceived bitterness; a beer beverage having a bitterness value of 14-20 BUs will have mild bitterness; and a beer beverage having a bitterness value of 20-30 BUs will have some bitterness (page 2, list under “Using BUs”). These disclosed bitterness values fall within the ranges recited in present claims 6 and 7.
It would have been obvious for person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to have modified the beer-taste beverage of Takasumi to have a bitterness value of 10-30 BUs as taught by Beervana. Since Takasumi teaches that the beer-taste beverage is produced through fermentation of hops and hops are known to add bitterness to a beer-taste beverage, but Takasumi does not disclose a bitterness value of the beer-taste beverage, a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to consult an additional reference such as Beervana in order to determine a suitable bitterness value for a beer-taste beverage, thereby rendering the claimed bitterness values recited in present claims 6 and 7 obvious.
Furthermore, since Takasumi teaches that the total amount of glucose, sucrose, maltose, isomaltose, maltotriose, and/or isomaltotriose in the beer-taste beverage may be 0.1-1 w/v% (page 3, lines 1-7; page 4, lines 9-16); and Beervana teaches that the bitterness value of the beer-taste beverage may be 10-30 BUs (page 2, list under “Using BUs”), the combination of prior art teaches that the beer-taste beverage may have a ratio of bitterness value in BUs to saccharides (A) in w/v% of 10-300, which overlaps the ratio range recited in present claim 10. The selection of a value within the overlapping range renders the claimed ratio obvious. MPEP 2144.05.I.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kelly Kershaw whose telephone number is (571)272-2847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 4:00 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, Nikki 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.
/KELLY P KERSHAW/Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights