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 § 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.
Claims 1-23 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.
In claim 1, the limitation “ under the detection level, when measured by Procedure A” is vague and indefinite because it’s not clear what procedure A is. The specification discloses procedure A for detecting methanol. However, features in specification are not read into the claim. The claim does not specify what procedure A is. The limitation “ median VOC (20” is vague and indefinite because it’s not known what this limitation encompasses. The specification discloses the procedure for measuring VOC; however, the 20 most common compounds are not disclosed and there is no data given for the median. Thus, it’s not known what median VOC 20 encompasses. The scope of the claim cannot be determined. In (i)-(vi), the recitation of “ the ratio” does not have antecedent basis and is unclear because the claim has not set forth that the article contains EtAc, hexanoic acid, phenylethyl alcohol, octanoic acid and decanoic acid. Thus, it’s unclear what the ratio indicates. The limitation of “ measured according to Procedure B” is vague and indefinite because it’s not clear what procedure B is. The specification discloses procedure B for analyzing VOC. However, features in specification are not read into the claim. The claim does not specify what procedure B is.
Claims 2-5 have the same problem as (i)- ( vi) of claim 1.
In claim 19: in step d, the limitation of “ measured according to Procedure B” is vague and indefinite because it’s not clear what procedure B is. The specification discloses procedure B for analyzing VOC. However, features in specification are not read into the claim. The claim does not specify what procedure B is. Step c is vague and indefinite. The step recites “ obtaining “ without defining any processing parameters; it’s unclear what the step encompasses.
Claims 21-23 have the same problem as (i)-(vi) of claim 1.
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) 1-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonezawa ( 2023/0049743) in view of Gordon ( 20190127671) and Reiss ( 2009/0155446).
For claim 1, Yonezawa discloses a de-alcoholized beverage prepared from an alcohol-containing beverage. The beverage comprises the aroma compounds that are present in the original alcohol-containing beverage and has an ethanol concentration of lower than .005% v/v. The aroma component contained in an alcohol-containing beverage include acetaldehyde, ethyl acetate, i-butanol, isoamyl acetate, isoamyl alcohol. These compounds are some of the same compounds disclosed in the specification and cited in claim 13. Thus, the de-alcoholized beverage comprises an amount of innate volative organic compound. Yonezawa does not disclose adding additional flavoring or coloring. The de-alcoholized beverage is obtained by adding aroma compounds separated from the alcohol-containing beverage to a residual liquid where aroma compounds and ethanol are separated. The de-alcoholized beverage has no added flavor and/or coloring relative to the alcoholic beverage. ( see paragraphs 0008-0010, 0015, 0030,0040)
For claim 13, Yonezawa discloses the innate aroma compounds including ethyl acetate, isoamyl acetate, i-butanol. ( see paragraph 0055)
For claim 14, Yonezawa discloses the beverage has an ethanol concentration of lower than .005% v/v. ( see paragraph 0015)
For claim 15, Yonezawa discloses the alcoholic-containing beverage includes fermented alcoholic beverage like wine made from fermented grapes. ( see paragraph 0031
For claim 16, Yonezawa discloses the alcoholic beverages including wine, beer, sake, cider, whiskey, branby and shochu. ( see paragraph 0031)
For claims 17-18, Yonezawa discloses the de-alcoholized beverage comprising at least 70% of the aroma compounds of the alcoholic beverage. ( see paragraph 0055
For claim 19, Yonezawa discloses a process for preparing the de-alcoholized beverage. The process comprises the steps of providing an alcohol-containing beverage containing a plurality of innate aroma compounds, preparing a concentrate comprising the aroma compound by separating ethanol and aroma component from the alcohol-containing beverage, preparing a drink from the concentrate comprising ethanol and aroma component. For claim 20, Yonezawa discloses preparing a mixture by separating the ethanol and aroma component from the alcohol-containing beverage, concentrating the mixture by bringing a resin into contact with the mixture containing ethanol and aroma component, adsorbing the aroma component onto the resin, removing the ethanol from the resin and recovering the aroma component from the resin from which the ethanol was removed. In order to increase the adsorption rate of the aroma component, the mixture can be passed multiple times. The treatment with resin can be carried out in a column. The passing of the mixture through the column multiple times is equivalent to the claimed passing of the pre-concentrate and concentrate because each subsequent time, the mixture that is being passed had already been passed through once. In claim 19, the limitation Procedure B is not given weight because the claim does not define the procedure. ( see paragraphs 0008, 0010,0040, 0041-0049,0055)
Yonezawa does not disclose the methanol content and one of the ratio as in claim 1, the ratios as in claims 2-5, the amounts of VOC as in claims 6-10, the log Pow as in claims 11,12 and the ratio as in claims 21-23.
Gordon discloses a method and device for producing of high quality beverages. Gordon discloses that methanol is an impuriy that is found in alcoholic beverages based on an aqueous solution of alcohol. Gordon discloses treatment to cause destruction of the impurity. ( see paragraph 0092)
Reiss discloses a process for the preparation of a flavoring concentrate. Reiss discloses methanol convey a negative sensory impression. Reiss also teaches that the log Pow value makes it possible to predict for the respective flavoring and/or aromatic substances in which the respective flavoring and/or aromatic substance adsorbs on adsorption material in the aqueous phase for a given solvent proportion or remains in the aqueous phase. ( see paragraphs 0011,0069)
Claim 1 is vague and indefinite with respect to procedure A and procedure B and the ratios as explained in the 112 rejection above. Since claim 1 is a product, how methanol and VOC are measured does not determine the patentability of the product. The limitation is also not given weight because claim 1 does not define procedure A and procedure B. The claim recites VOC 20 but does not define what these compounds are and what will constitute the median. The specification also does not give any data regarding the median VOC. The scope of the ratio is unclear. Yonezawa discloses de-alcoholized beverage comprising innate volatile compounds present in the original alcoholic beverage. The concentration of the volatile compounds and the types of compounds would vary depending on the type of alcoholic beverage and the degrees of concentration. Yonezawa discloses the adsorption rate of the aroma compounds can increase by passing the mixture containing the compounds multiple times. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the ratio of the volatile compounds and the type of compounds depending on the alcoholic beverage used and the taste and flavor desired in the de-alcoholized beverage to be very closely to the original alcoholic beverage. This parameter can be determined through routine experimentation to obtain the most optimum product in taste and flavor. As shown in Gordon, methanol is an impurity in alcohol. Reiss also shows that methanol gives a negative sensory impression in flavoring concentrate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove all methanol from the Yonezawa beverage to give a purer product with better taste.
For claims 2-5 and 6-10,21-23, Yonezawa discloses de-alcoholized beverage comprising innate volatile compounds present in the original alcoholic beverage. The concentration of the volatile compounds and the types of compounds would vary depending on the type of alcoholic beverage and the degrees of concentration. Yonezawa discloses the adsorption rate of the aroma compounds can increase by passing the mixture containing the compounds multiple times. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the ratio of the volatile compounds and the type of compounds depending on the alcoholic beverage used and the taste and flavor desired in the de-alcoholized beverage to be very closely to the original alcoholic beverage. For claims 7-10, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the to vary the amount and types of volatile components depending on the alcoholic beverage used and the flavor, aroma and taste desired in the de-alcoholized to resemble the original alcoholic beverage. For claims 11,12, Reiss teaches the log pow value can predict the aroma substances ability to adsorb on adsorption material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the log pow value of the volatile aroma component in Yonezawa to determine its absorption on the resin. It’s expected different component will have different log pow value.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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.
December 10, 2025
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793