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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Rejected Claims: 1 and 5-18
Withdrawn Claims: 19
Cancelled Claims: 2-4
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12 FEBRUARY 2026 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claim 1 and the cancellation of claim 3 have been acknowledged.
In view of the amendment to claim 1 and the cancellation of claim 3, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claim 3 has been withdrawn and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claim 1 has been modified to include the limitations of claim 3 that were incorporated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12 FEBRUARY 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that there is sufficient structure to perform the recited function to avoid interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (Arguments filed 12 FEBRUARY 2026, Page 7, Paragraphs 4-7).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against the interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the following limitations being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) of “a pretreatment module configured to treat a material that is introduced”, “an extraction module configured to extract a fragrance material from slurry”, “a circulation concentration determiner configured to acquire a concentration of the stored intermediate concentrate”, “a fragrance extractor configured to extract the fragrance material from the slurry”, “a liquid extractor configured to extract a liquid material from the slurry”, “a wet material treating device configured to generate the juice and the slurry by treating the wet material”, “a dry material device configured to generate solid paste by treating the dry material” do not have sufficient structure to be interpreted without 35 U.S.C. 112(f). 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is simply a description of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitations. The listed elements in the specification and equivalents thereof are interpreted as falling under the given limitations. Applicant needs to add additional structural limitations beyond a generically named device followed by the intended results of the device if Applicant desires an interpretation that is not under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), which would be a narrower interpretation of the claims.
Applicant argues, regarding claim 1, that Zimmer teaches a different control system than the instant claims because Zimmer simply recirculates for a number of passes and the conditions under which the fluid are not specified. Therefore, Zimmer does not teach recirculation or discharge based upon the concentration of the intermediate concentrate and it would be difficult to maintain a specific concentration in the evaporator. This also applies to the newly added limitations of claim 1 in which the second evaporator has the same control scheme as the first evaporator and Rich in view of Zimmer does not make these controls obvious and so claim 1 is allowable (Arguments filed 12 FEBRUARY 2026, Page 7, Paragraph 8 to Page 11, Paragraph 6).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, Zimmer teaches a falling film evaporator (Abstract) automatically controlled by concentration through a computer and PLC (Col. 11, Lines 19-34) with the evaporator system (Fig. 1B, #100) including a liquid sump (Fig. 1B, #105; Col. 6, Lines 48-57) where the liquid product is only discharged once the final concentrate concentration is achieved which can be accomplished in a single system with recirculation or multi-pass system with multiple evaporators (Col. 11, Lines 39-60). Zimmer further teaches that the evaporator system increases the capacity of the evaporator while maintaining the size of the system such that transport over public roads is still possible (Col. 5, Line 36 to Col. 6, Line 6). The paragraph directly above the one cited by Applicant reads:
PNG
media_image1.png
258
280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
which states explicitly that the concentration of the evaporator is controlled before discharge, which is exactly the control scheme of instant claim 1. Furthermore, Rich teaches multiple evaporators in sequence. Furthermore, Zimmer explicitly teaches the use of these evaporators for concentrating juices (Col. 3, Lines 44-61). Combining these teachings, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to apply the concentration control system as taught by Zimmer to the multiple evaporators as taught by Rich because the capacity of the evaporator system can be increased for the same size of system. Therefore, claim 1 is not allowable.
Applicant argues that claim 1 is allowable and so claims 5-18 are also allowable because they depend upon claim 1 (Arguments filed 12 FEBRUARY 2026, Page 11, Paragraph 7).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, claim 1 is not allowable and so claims 5-18 are also not allowable.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In Claim 1, “a pretreatment module configured to treat a material that is introduced”, “an extraction module configured to extract a fragrance material from slurry”, “a circulation concentration determiner configured to acquire a concentration of the stored intermediate concentrate”, and “a circulation concentration determiner configured to acquire a concentration of the concentrate”. Regarding “a pretreatment module configured to treat a material that is introduced”, paragraph 24 of the instant specification includes the use of a classifier to separate wet material and dry material by irradiating electromagnetic waves or applying a current to the material, paragraph 25 of the instant specification includes an optical system and an image sensor to recognize and find the material, paragraph 27 of the instant specification includes treating the wet material with a crusher, a juicer, and a filter, and paragraph 31 of the instant specification includes a cooker, a water adder, and an enzyme part. Regarding “an extraction module configured to extract a fragrance material from slurry”, paragraph 68 of the instant specification includes a distiller. Regarding “a circulation concentration determiner configured to acquire a concentration of the stored intermediate concentrate”, paragraph 40 of the instant specification includes a brix concentration measuring device. Regarding “a circulation concentration determiner configured to acquire a concentration of the concentrate”, paragraph 47 of the instant specification includes a brix concentration measuring device
In Claim 11, “a fragrance extractor configured to extract the fragrance material from the slurry” and “a liquid extractor configured to extract a liquid material from the slurry”. Regarding “a fragrance extractor configured to extract the fragrance material from the slurry” and “a liquid extractor configured to extract a liquid material from the slurry”, paragraph 68 of the instant specification includes a distiller.
In Claim 12, “a wet material treating device configured to generate the juice and the slurry by treating the wet material” and “a dry material device configured to generate solid paste by treating the dry material”. Regarding “a wet material treating device configured to generate the juice and the slurry by treating the wet material”, paragraph 27 of the instant specification includes treating the wet material with a crusher, a juicer, and a filter, and regarding “a dry material device configured to generate solid paste by treating the dry material”, paragraph 31 of the instant specification includes a cooker, a water adder, and an enzyme part.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 11, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rich US Patent No. 4973485 A (hereinafter Rich), in view of Zimmer US Patent No. 10046249 B2 (hereinafter Zimmer).
Regarding Claim 1, Rich discloses an apparatus and process related to commercially processed orange juice products (i.e., a system for manufacturing a liquid product; Col. 1, Lines 13-18) which includes obtaining feed juice from orange fruit through a commercial juice extractor (i.e., a pretreatment module configured to treat a material that is introduced; Col. 9, Lines 42-53), obtaining aqueous stripper essence and stripper oil from feed juice by a heat exchanger and stripping column (i.e., an extraction module configured to extract a fragrance material from slurry further obtained by treating the wet material in the pretreatment module; Col. 17, Lines 7-37), evaporative concentration of feed juice utilizing a plurality of evaporators (i.e., an evaporation module configured to generate concentrate by concentrating juice obtained by treating an wet material included in the introduced material in the pretreatment module; Col. 27, Lines 5-25), and producing single strength orange juice products and orange juice concentrates by blending orange juice concentrate, aroma and flavor materials, sensible pulp, and water (i.e., a productization module configured to generate the liquid product by mixing the concentrate and the fragrance material; Col. 36, Lines 61-68 to Col. 37, Lines 1-8). Rich further discloses plate evaporators utilizing a static surface generally operate by heating a thin film (Col. 28, Lines 39-56) and teaches a plurality of evaporators where the temperature increases in each step as the concentration increases (i.e., wherein the evaporation module includes: a thin film concentrator configured to form intermediate concentrate by heating the juice and concentrating the juice through a scheme of forming a thin film; and a plate concentrator configured to generate the concentrate by further concentrating the intermediate concentrate concentrated in the thin film concentrator in a scheme of exchanging heat of the intermediate concentrate with a plurality of plates while causing the intermediate concentrate to pass between the plurality of plates; Col. 27, Lines 5-50). Rich further teaches that the evaporative concentration process has a preferred Brix concentration (i.e., dissolved sugar concentration) that correlates to a better display of added orange aroma/flavor volatiles (Col. 25, Lines 36-48).
Rich does not teach a processor connected to the evaporation module and configured to control the evaporation module, wherein the evaporation module further includes: a liquid storage tank, wherein the liquid storage tank includes a concentration determiner that is configured to acquire a concentration of the intermediate concentrate that is stored in the liquid storage tank; and where the processor is configured to: control the intermediate concentrate generated by the thin film concentrator to be delivered to the liquid storage tank; when the concentration of the concentrate acquired by the concentration determiner is less than a specific pass concentration, control the intermediate concentrate stored in the liquid storage tank to recirculate to the thin film concentrator; and when the concentration of the concentrate acquired by the concentration determiner is the specific pass concentration or more, control the intermediate concentrate stored in the liquid storage tank to be delivered to the plate concentrator, and wherein the evaporation module further includes: a circulation tank; and wherein the evaporation module further includes a circulation concentration determiner configured to acquire a concentration of the concentrate stored in the circulation tank, and wherein the processor is configured to: control the concentrate generated by the plate concentrator to be delivered to the circulation tank; when the concentration of the concentrate acquired by the circulation concentration determine is less than a specific circulation concentration, control the concentrate stored in the circulation tank to recirculate to the plate concentrator; and when the concentration of the concentrate acquired by the circulation concentration determiner is the specific circulation concentration or more, control the concentrate stored in the circulation tank to be delivered to the productization module.
However, Zimmer teaches a falling film evaporator (Abstract) automatically controlled by concentration through a computer and PLC (i.e., a processor connected to the evaporation module and configured to control the evaporation module; Col. 11, Lines 19-34) with the evaporator system (Fig. 1B, #100) including a liquid sump (i.e., wherein the evaporation module further includes: a liquid storage tank; Fig. 1B, #105; Col. 6, Lines 48-57) where the liquid product is only discharged once the final concentrate concentration is achieved which can be accomplished in a single or multi-pass system with multiple evaporators (i.e., wherein the liquid storage tank includes a concentration determiner that is configured to acquire a concentration of the intermediate concentrate that is stored in the liquid storage tank; and where the processor is configured to: control the intermediate concentrate generated by the thin film concentrator to be delivered to the liquid storage tank; when the concentration of the concentrate acquired by the concentration determiner is less than a specific pass concentration, control the intermediate concentrate stored in the liquid storage tank to recirculate to the thin film concentrator; and when the concentration of the concentrate acquired by the concentration determiner is the specific pass concentration or more, control the intermediate concentrate stored in the liquid storage tank to be delivered to the plate concentrator; wherein the evaporation module further includes: a circulation tank; and wherein the evaporation module further includes a circulation concentration determiner configured to acquire a concentration of the concentrate stored in the circulation tank, and wherein the processor is configured to: control the concentrate generated by the plate concentrator to be delivered to the circulation tank; when the concentration of the concentrate acquired by the circulation concentration determine is less than a specific circulation concentration, control the concentrate stored in the circulation tank to recirculate to the plate concentrator; and when the concentration of the concentrate acquired by the circulation concentration determiner is the specific circulation concentration or more, control the concentrate stored in the circulation tank to be delivered to the productization module; Col. 11, Lines 39-60). Zimmer further teaches that the evaporator system increases the capacity of the evaporator while maintaining the size of the system such that transport over public roads is still possible (Col. 5, Line 36 to Col. 6, Line 6).
Zimmer is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a falling film evaporator (Abstract) that can be used in a variety of applications such as the concentration of food and beverage products including juices (Col. 3, Lines 44-61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus taught by Rich with the concentration controlled evaporator system as taught by Zimmer because the concentration controlled automatic evaporator system would allow for the control of the juice to a preferred Brix concentration to improve the flavor and also improve the capacity while maintaining the capability of the system to be transported over public roads.
Regarding Claim 5, Rich in view of Zimmer makes obvious the system of claim 1. Rich further teaches that the vapor from stages E2 through E7 (Figure) contains significant amounts of orange aroma/flavor volatiles which can be collected and then processed in an aroma recovery system to recover useful orange aroma/flavor materials (i.e., wherein the thin film concentrator delivers the fragrance material generated while the intermediate concentrate is formed to the extraction module; Col. 29, Lines 62-68 to Col. 30, Lines 1-6).
Regarding Claim 6, Rich in view of Zimmer makes obvious the system of claim 1. Rich further teaches a centrifugal cone evaporator with at least one rotatable hollow cone-shaped member (i.e., an evaporation plate having a conical shape) where the feed juice is sprayed onto the underside surface of the cone-shaped member (i.e., a sprayer configured to spray the juice or the intermediate concentrate to an inner surface of the evaporation plate) and the rotating member is heated through steam (i.e., and a vapor provider) which is typically supplied through jackets formed in the rotating member (i.e., configured to heat the evaporation plate by providing vapor to an outer surface of the evaporation plate) to provide a juice concentrate by evaporation of a juice film (i.e., such that the juice or the intermediate concentrate sprayed to the evaporation plate is evaporated to be concentrated while forming the thin film; Col. 31, Lines 12-62).
Regarding Claim 8, Rich in view of Zimmer makes obvious the system of claim 1. Zimmer further teaches a falling film evaporator (Abstract) automatically controlled by concentration through a computer and PLC (Col. 11, Lines 19-34) with the evaporator system (Fig. 1B, #100) including a liquid sump (Fig. 1B, #105; Col. 6, Lines 48-57) where the liquid product is only discharged once the final concentrate concentration is achieved which can be accomplished in a single or multi-pass system with multiple evaporators (i.e., wherein the evaporation module further includes: an auxiliary tank configured to store the generated concentrate and selectively deliver the concentrate to the productization module; Col. 11, Lines 39-60).
Regarding Claim 11, Rich in view of Zimmer makes obvious the system of claim 1. Rich further teaches obtaining aqueous stripper essence and stripper oil from feed juice by a heat exchanger and stripping column in which hot feed juice is pumped into the top of the stripper column which is operated under vacuum and contacted with a stripping agent to remove the aroma and flavor volatiles (i.e., an extractor including a fragrance extractor configured to extract the fragrance material from the slurry, and a liquid extractor configured to extract a liquid material from the slurry; Col. 17, Lines 7-37), followed by condensation recovery of aqueous stripper essence and stripper oil in separate closed tanks where condensate water is removed to concentrate the volatile stream and recycled to the stripper column (Col. 19, Lines 50-68 to Col. 20, Lines 1-28) where the feed juice is pumped from the last stage of the stripper column and sent either directly to the evaporation concentration system or cooled and stored prior to evaporative concentration (i.e., selectively deliver the stored liquid material to the evaporation module; Col. 18, Lines 41-46), and then in Example 1 the condensate is collected in a condensate collection tank prior to being recycled (i.e., a liquid recovery tank configured to store the liquid material extracted by the liquid extractor; Col. 22, Lines 51-68 to Col. 23, lines 1-43).
Regarding Claim 16, Rich in view of Zimmer makes obvious the system of claim 1. Rich further teaches producing single strength orange juice products and orange juice concentrates by blending orange juice concentrate, aroma and flavor materials, sensible pulp, and water (i.e., ; Col. 36, Lines 61-68 to Col. 37, Lines 1-8) with a typical blending sequence being adding a portion of the orange juice concentrate (i.e., the concentrate delivered from the evaporation module) and orange essence materials (i.e., the fragrance material delivered from the extraction module) to a blend tank (i.e., a mixer), followed by the orange oil materials (i.e., the fragrance material delivered from the extraction module) and the remaining orange juice concentrate followed by mixing for at least 30 minutes (i.e., a mixer configured to mix the concentrate delivered from the evaporation module and the fragrance material delivered from the extraction module by agitating the concentrate and the fragrance material; Col. 38, Lines 26-40).
Regarding Claim 17, Rich in view of Zimmer makes obvious the system of claim 16. Rich further teaches that once prepared, the single-strength orange juice products are typically pasteurized or sterilized prior to being filled into the packaging (i.e., a sterilizer configured to sterilize a preliminary product obtained through the mixing of the mixer by applying heat to the preliminary product; Col. 38, Lines 53-60).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rich in view of Zimmer with support from Dimitriou US Patent No. 4572766 A (hereinafter Dimitriou).
Regarding Claim 7, Rich in view of Zimmer makes obvious the system of claim 1. Rich further teaches a Sigmastar® plate evaporator (Dimitriou, incorporated for reference) to be used to concentrate juice with steam heating (i.e., a thermal medium of high temperature; Col. 28, Lines 39-68 to Col. 29, Lines 1-13). Dimitriou further teaches a plurality of plates in a plate stack (i.e., the plurality of plates; Abstract; Fig. 7, #43) with a plurality of passages (i.e., a plurality of passages; Fig. 7, #39’, 40’, 26’, 27’, 24, 26, 27; Col. 5, Lines 55-68 to Col. 6, Lines 1-14; Col. 7, Lines 25-57) where rectangular fluid inlet opening (i.e., a plate inlet; Fig. 7, #24) is open over the entire plate width towards the plate side associated with the fluid to be evaporated (i.e., a plate inlet configured to guide the intermediate concentrate or the concentrate to the plurality of plates such that the intermediate concentrate or the concentrate passes through concentrate passages that are some parts of the plurality of passages; Col. 5, Lines 64-67), and where inflow openings 26, 27, 39’, and 40’ are for the heating medium (i.e., a thermal medium inlet configured to deliver a thermal medium of high temperature to thermal medium passages that are other parts of the plurality of passages for transferring heat to the intermediate concentrate or the concentrate that passes through the concentrate passages; Col. 7, Lines 25-57) with an opening (i.e., a plate outlet; Fig. 7, #25) for the outflow of the evaporated product formed by vapor and concentrate (i.e., a plate outlet configured to discharge the concentrate that is further concentrated as the concentrate is evaporated while passing through the concentrate passages; Col. 5, Lines 55-68 to Col. 6, Lines 1-14).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rich in view of Zimmer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of De Schutter et al US Patent No. 20170260487 A1 (hereinafter De Schutter).
Regarding Claim 9, Rich in view of Zimmer makes obvious the system of claim 1. Rich further teaches that there are low molecular weight volatiles and other less volatile compounds that can are characteristic fresh compounds of freshly hand-squeezed orange juice (Col. 2, Lines 45-57) and that the condensation recovery of aqueous stripper essence and stripper oil are stored in separate closed tanks (i.e., a plurality of fragrance storage tank configured to separate the fragrance materials and store the separated fragrance materials; Col. 19, Lines 50-68 to Col. 20, Lines 1-28).
Rich in view of Zimmer does not teach wherein the evaporation module further includes a fragrance selector including a separation unit for molecular weights configured to separate the plurality of extracted fragrance materials according to molecular weights thereof, a plurality of fragrance storage tank configured to separate the fragrance materials separated according to the molecular weights thereof and store the separated fragrance materials, and a switching unit configured to selectively deliver the fragrance materials stored in the plurality of fragrance storage tanks to the productization module.
However, De Schutter teaches a general scheme for concentrating beer where the first step subjects the beer (Fig. 1, #1) to nanofiltration (Fig. 1, A) to separate molecular weights with a barrier of 150-200 Da in size where the retentate (Fig. 1, #2) is collected and the fraction comprising alcohol and volatile flavor components, or permeate (Fig. 1, #3), is directed to a second concentration step (Fig. 1, B) that involves fractionation of either distillation or reverse osmosis to concentrate alcohol and flavor components (i.e., a separation unit for molecular weights; Fig. 1, #4) to be blended back in with the nanofiltration retentate (Paragraph 0032). De Schutter further teaches that fractional distillation is advantageous because different flavor components can be selectively collected or discarded from the column which allows greater control over the preferred flavor/aroma profile (i.e., a switching unit configured to selectively deliver the fragrance materials to the productization module; Paragraph 0055). De Schutter teaches that the scheme for concentrating beer allows for 5 to 20 times concentration increases, high retention of volatile natural flavoring components, and selective flavoring (Paragraph 0080).
De Schutter is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the preparation of a concentrate comprising flavor components where volatile flavor components are separated by fractional distillation (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the stripper column and tanks to hold the aqueous stripper essence and stripper oil made obvious by Rich in view of Zimmer with the general scheme for concentrating drinks as taught by De Schutter because the general scheme for concentrating drinks would improve the retention of volatile natural flavoring components and aid in selective flavoring of the concentrated beverage.
Regarding Claim 10, Rich in view of Zimmer in view of De Schutter makes obvious the system of claim 9. De Schutter further teaches that the fractionation can be reverse osmosis (i.e., wherein the separation unit for molecular weights separates the fragrance materials according to the molecular weights thereof by using a reverse osmosis scheme; Paragraph 0032).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rich in view of Zimmer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gitschel US Patent No. 7419692 B1 (hereinafter Gitschel).
Regarding Claim 12, Rich in view of Zimmer makes obvious the system of claim 1. Rich further teaches obtaining feed juice from orange fruit by gentle juice extraction (Col. 9, Lines 42-53) followed by primary finishing with vibrating screens to remove non-juice materials (i.e., a wet material treating device configured to generate the juice and the slurry by treating the wet material separated by the source material determining device; Col. 11, Lines 10-68 to Col. 12, Lines, 1-16).
Rich in view of Zimmer does not teach wherein the pretreatment module includes: a source material determining device configured to separate the introduced material into the wet material and a dry material by irradiating electromagnetic waves or apply a current to the introduced material; and a dry material treating device configured to generate solid paste by treating the dry material separated by the source material determining device.
However, Gitschel teaches a material mechanically sorted to produce individual sorted fractions of wet organics and dry organics (i.e., a source material determining device configured to separate the introduced material into the wet material and a dry material; Paragraph 0025) where the separation system may include magnets and Eddy Current separators (i.e., by irradiating electromagnetic waves or apply a current to the introduced material; Paragraph 0026) and the dry organic material is independently processed (Paragraph 0025) and has a moisture content of less than 30% (i.e., a dry material treating device configured to generate solid paste by treating the dry material separated by the source material determining device; Paragraph 0029). Gitschel further teaches that the system and method is capable of handling large volumes of highly variable mixed materials (Paragraph 0013).
Gitschel is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to separating a mixture of wet and dry organic material (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the juicing process made obvious by Rich in view of Zimmer with the sorting separation system taught by Gitschel because the sorting separation system would be able to handle large volumes of highly variable mixed materials.
Regarding Claim 13, Rich in view of Zimmer in view of Gitschel makes obvious the system of claim 12. Rich further teaches obtaining feed juice from orange fruit by juice extraction (i.e., a juicer configured to generate the slurry and unfiltered juice by extracting juice from the crushed wet material; Col. 9, Lines 42-53) followed by primary finishing with vibrating screens to remove non-juice materials (i.e., a filter configured to obtain the juice by filtering the unfiltered juice; Col. 11, Lines 10-68 to Col. 12, Lines, 1-16). Gitschel further teaches that optional grinding may improve size separation processes (i.e., a crusher configured to crush the wet material; Paragraph 0058).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rich in view of Zimmer in view of Gitschel as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Gusek et al US Patent No. 20180153199 A1 (hereinafter Gusek).
Regarding Claim 14, Rich in view of Zimmer in view of Gitschel makes obvious the system of claim 12. Rich in view of Zimmer in view of Gitschel does not teach wherein the dry material treating device includes: a cooker configured to cook the dry material by heating the dry material; and a water adder configured to generate the solid paste by applying water to the cooked dry material.
However, Gusek teaches heat treatment prior to homogenization (i.e., a cooker configured to cook the dry material by heating the dry material; Paragraph 0021) where homogenization involves washing the citrus pool with water followed by intensive blending (i.e., a water adder configured to generate the solid paste by applying water to the cooked dry material; Paragraph 0015). Gusek further teaches that the process taught improves the economical value of the product by improving the functional properties of the fibers (Paragraph 0004).
Gusek is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a process for obtaining dried citrus fiber that is useful as a food additive in food products and beverages (Paragraph 0002). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to treat the dry non-juice materials made obvious by Rich in view of Zimmer in view of Gitschel with the heat treatment and homogenization as taught by Gusek because the heat treatment and homogenization would improve the economic value of the fibers.
Regarding Claim 15, Rich in view of Zimmer in view of Gitschel in view of Gusek makes obvious the system for manufacturing a liquid product of claim 14. Gusek further teaches that a processing aid in the form of enzymes is mixed with the citrus peel after homogenization (i.e., wherein the dry material treating device further includes: an enzyme part configured to apply enzymes to the solid paste; Paragraph 0031).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rich in view of Zimmer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gusek.
Regarding Claim 18, Rich in view of Zimmer makes obvious the system of claim 1. Rich further teaches obtaining feed juice from orange fruit by gentle juice extraction (i.e., the wet material; Col. 9, Lines 42-53) followed by primary finishing with vibrating screens to remove non-juice materials (i.e., wherein the pretreatment module separates the wet material and a dry material further included in the introduced material; Col. 11, Lines 10-68 to Col. 12, Lines, 1-16) and obtaining aqueous stripper essence and stripper oil from the feed juice by a heat exchanger and stripping column (Col. 17, Lines 7-37), evaporative concentration of feed juice utilizing a plurality of evaporators (Col. 27, Lines 5-25), and producing single strength orange juice products and orange juice concentrates by blending orange juice concentrate, aroma and flavor materials, sensible pulp, and water (i.e., to treat the wet material; Col. 36, Lines 61-68 to Col. 37, Lines 1-8).
Rich in view of Zimmer does not teach wherein the pretreatment module treats the dry material and wherein the extraction module further extracts the fragrance material from a solid paste obtained by treating the dry material.
However, Gusek teaches contacting a homogenized citrus peel with an organic solvent to extract the flavors, odors, colors, and the like from the citrus peel (i.e., wherein the pretreatment module treats the dry material and wherein the extraction module further extracts the fragrance material from a solid paste obtained by treating the dry material; Paragraph 0022). Gusek further teaches where homogenization involves washing the citrus pool with water followed by intensive blending (i.e., extracts the fragrance material from a solid paste; Paragraph 0015) and that the process taught improves the economical value of the product by improving the functional properties of the fibers (Paragraph 0004).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to treat the dry non-juice materials made obvious by Rich in view of Zimmer with the heat treatment and homogenization as taught by Gusek because the heat treatment and homogenization would improve the economic value of the fibers.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/A.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/Ryan B Huang/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights