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 .
Status of the Application
Receipt is acknowledged of the request for continued examination filed 8/8/2025, and the amendment and response filed 7/22/2025. Claims 1,3-7,9,11-18,20 and 24 are pending in the application. Claims 18 and 20 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1,4,6,7,9,11-14,16 and 24 were amended, and claims 2,8,10,19 and 21-23 were canceled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/22/2025 has been entered.
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 1 and dependent claims 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 1 recites a method of drying with a step of spraying and drying a composition comprising cocoa pulp and a stabilizer, wherein the stabilizer is cocoa powder. The method steps and the composition being dried, with the open-ended transitional phrase “comprising” are not clearly defined. “Spraying and drying” is recited without providing conditions and type of drying, and “in combination with a stabilizer” does not preclude cocoa solids in pulp as a stabilizer. Dependent claims recite treating steps. The scope of the composition being dried and the method are therefore unclear. For example, Claim 24 recites “prior to mixing with the stabilizer” in claim 1. However, claim 1 does not recite a mixing step. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1,3-7,9,11-17 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Declercq et al. (“Process of extracting sugars from cocoa pulp” listed in an IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Declercq (see page 2 and 3) discloses a process for extracting sugars from cocoa pulp. The process for extracting sugars from cocoa pulp comprising the steps of: (a) providing a cocoa pulp; (b) thinning the cocoa pulp; (c) filtering the thinned pulp to obtain a filtrate comprising at least 10% sugar by weight; and (d) concentrating the filtrate of step (c) to obtain a sugar composition. The filtrate is then further concentrated (or "dewatered").Concentration may be achieved using any means known in the art including, for example, refining, drying, crystallization, evaporation, condensing, freeze drying, spray drying, centrifugation, precipitation and any combination thereof, meeting the limitation of “spraying and drying”. Regarding the “combination with a stabilizer” the cocoa pulp inherently contains cocoa solids, cocoa fiber which are the components of cocoa powder as claimed in claim 1, and the content is expected to meet the limitations in claims 4, 5 and 9. As applicant has not specified the nature of the “composition comprising cocoa pulp and stabilizer” in the independent claim, and independent claims recite enzymatic treatment of polysaccharide in the pulp, a sugar extract as in the cited art is not precluded. The thinned pulp is expected to contain cocoa solids and cocoa fiber, dextrins and soluble fiber as these are natural components of pulp.
Regarding claim 14, the thinning step in Declercq will lead to degradation of the pulp's pectin content. Declercq discloses that thinning may be achieved by enzymatic treatment. Preferably, thinning will be performed by contacting the pulp with a pectinase-type enzyme. Examples of suitable pectinases include pectolyase, pectozyme, polygalacturonase and combinations thereof (page 2 lines 30-35).
Regarding claim 3, 6, 7, 9, and 17, the resulting sugar composition, may be in the form of a syrup, a slurry, a mass, a dry powder or in the form of crystals. Preferably it will have a dry solid content of at least 80%, more preferably of at least 90%, more preferably of at least 95% and therefore less than 10% water, as claimed, and, according to certain embodiments, of at least 97 or 99% by weight. It will comprise one or more sugars together, advantageously, with one or more other ingredients from the pulp which, it is believed, contribute to a rich, distinctive and desirable taste.
Regarding claim 16, Declercq discloses that the pulp will preferably be neutralized to a pH between 3 and 6, such as 3.5 or 4.5, prior to thinning, which overlaps the claimed pH range (page 3 lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 11-15, Declercq discloses a process of obtaining a cocoa pulp extract (i.e., cocoa sugar) wherein the pectin content (i.e., a type of polysaccharide) in the cocoa pulp is degraded (i.e., reduced) by treating with a pectinase-type enzyme at a pH in the range of 3.0 to 6.0 (page 2 and 3). In the process, the cocoa pulp is incubated with the pectinase-type enzyme for between 10 and 48 hrs. (page 3 lines 3-8) . In the case where the claimed ranges, in this case pH and incubation time, overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP §2144.05). Declercq et al. is silent with respect to incubation temperature.
Declercq discloses that the incubation period will vary depending on the nature of the enzyme, the type and quantity of pulp, temperature and other parameters and may be optimized by a person of ordinary skill in the art (page 3 lines 6-8). One of ordinary skill in the art in routine processing, would have been motivated to adjust the incubation temperature for the enzymatic treatment of the cocoa pulp taught by Declercq et al. to obtain the desired reduction in pectin content, with a reasonable expectation of successfully. reducing the pectin content to make the resulting pulp extract easier to process (page 2 lines 23-25), based on the disclosure.
Claims 1,3-7,9,11-17 and 24 are therefore prima facie obvious in view of the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments do not address the scope of the invention. A meaningful comparison with prior art is therefore not possible. Amended claims recite a method of drying with a step of spraying and drying a composition comprising cocoa pulp and a stabilizer, wherein the stabilizer is cocoa powder. The method steps and the composition being dried, with the open-ended transitional phrase “comprising” are not clearly defined. “Spraying and drying” is recited without providing conditions and type of drying, and “in combination with a stabilizer” does not preclude cocoa solids in pulp as a stabilizer. Dependent claims recite treating steps to break down the pulp prior to drying. Applicant’s arguments are therefore not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Subbalakshmi Prakash whose telephone number is (571)270-3685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/SUBBALAKSHMI PRAKASH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793