Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/761,690

WHOLE PRESSED COFFEE BERRY JUICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 18, 2022
Examiner
LEBLANC, KATHERINE DEGUIRE
Art Unit
1791
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
The Coca-Cola Company
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
34%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
4y 0m
To Grant
69%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 34% of cases
34%
Career Allow Rate
201 granted / 596 resolved
-31.3% vs TC avg
Strong +35% interview lift
Without
With
+35.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 0m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
646
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
57.1%
+17.1% vs TC avg
§102
9.1%
-30.9% vs TC avg
§112
28.0%
-12.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 596 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 § 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) 1-10, 12 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velissariou(US 2006/0210689) in view of Canada.ca(Novel Food Information-CoffeeBerry whole fruit derivatives. Regarding claims 1-3, Velissariou teaches a juice product comprising: A coffee berry juice that is pretreated to reduce the browning of the whole coffee berry([0006], abstract, [0024], citric acid is added which according to the instant spec reduces browning), wherein the coffee berry juice wherein the coffee berry juice has detectable amounts of Limonene, and y-Terpinene before addition to the juice product([0060]) Wherein the coffee berry juice is reduced to a pH at 3 to 3.3 using citrus juice(citric acid) before adding to ([0024]) Velissariou does not specifically teach that the coffee berry juice is whole coffee berry juice. However, Canada.ca teaches a whole coffee berry powder that is formed by washing, drying, and grinding a whole coffee fruit(p.1). The powder can then be used to make beverages, aka, juice. Canada.ca teaches that the serving of the powder comprises 15mg to 120mg of total chlorogenic acids(p.2). Assuming an 8oz serving, 1L of juice would comprise 510mg to 4,080mg of chlorogenic acid(34 oz=IL). It would have been obvious to form the juice of Velissariou with whole coffee berries as taught in Canada.ca in order to achieve a higher amount of chlorogenic acid(polyphenols), which are known to provide health benefits. Velissariou does not teach the presence of alpha pinene, beta pinene, and myrcene in the juice. However, Velissariou in view of Canada.ca teaches forming a whole coffee berry juice as claimed. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the components in the whole coffee berry to be included in the whole coffee berry juice, including alpha pinene, beta pinene, and myrcene. Regarding claim 4, Velissariou teaches that the level of caffeine can be controlled or manipulated in the final beverage([0021]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to adjust the concentration of caffeine depending on consumer preference. Regarding claim 5, Velissariou teaches that the coffee berry is Coffea Arabica([0021]). Regarding claim 6, Velissariou teaches that the coffee berry is Coffea Arabica and not Coffea canephora as claimed. Therefore, the further choice of Coffea canephora is not limiting. Regarding claim 7, Velissariou is silent on the Coffea arabica coffee strain. However, it would have been obvious to select the appropriate strain depending on the taste profile desired in the beverage. Regarding claims 8 and 9, Velissariou teaches that the use of citric acid([0024]) which is a pH modifier and enzymatic oxidation modifier. Regarding claim 10, Velissariou teaches that the juice can comprise fruit juice but is silent on the exact type of fruit juice. However, it would have been obvious to select the appropriate strain depending on the taste profile desired in the beverage. Regarding claim 12, Velissariou teaches that the juice product comprises about 0.07 mg/ml to about 0.30mg/ml(70 to 300mg/L) caffeine(abstract). Regarding claim 13, Velissariou teaches that the juice product comprises 8 Brix([0057]). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments pertaining to Suzuki and Velissariou not teaching a whole coffee berry juice are moot due to the new grounds of rejection(see rejection above). The applicant argues that Velissariou does not teach the presence of alpha pinene, beta pinene, and myrcene in the juice. However, Velissariou in view of Canada.ca teaches forming a whole coffee berry juice as claimed. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the components in the whole coffee berry to be included in the whole coffee berry juice, including alpha pinene, beta pinene, and myrcene. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE D LEBLANC whose telephone number is (571)270-1136. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM EST M-F. 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. /KATHERINE D LEBLANC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 18, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 27, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 30, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 01, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 31, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 02, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600802
CONVERTED STARCH AND FOOD COMPRISING SAID CONVERTED STARCH
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593859
HIGH LOAD FLAVOR PARTICLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12532897
FROZEN CONFECTION MANUFACTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12495822
Structuring Agent for Use in Foods
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Patent 12478076
COFFEE COMPOSITION AND ITEMS MADE THEREFROM
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 25, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
34%
Grant Probability
69%
With Interview (+35.1%)
4y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 596 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month