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 of the Response and Amendment after Non-Final Office Action filed 3 November 2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant has overcome the following by virtue of amendment of the specification and claims: (1) the objections to the claims have been withdrawn; (2) the 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1-20
Withdrawn claims: 16-20
Previously canceled claims: None
Newly canceled claims: None
Amended claims: 1, 4, and 15
New claims: None
Claims currently under consideration: 1-15
Currently rejected claims: 1-15
Allowed claims: None
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, and 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Black, Jr. et al. (US 5,403,604 cited on the IDS filed on 18 August 2022).
Regarding claim 1, Black teaches a method of making a fruit beverage comprising:
passing a feed juice of a first fruit (orange, col. 2, lines 44-48) having a first limonoid (limonin, col. 3, lines 30-33) concentration through a first separation unit comprising at least one microfilter (ultrafiltration membrane with pore size up to 1 µm corresponding to a molecular weight cut-off (MWCO) up to 100,000 Da (col. 2, lines 60-63), specifically a 20,000 Da ultrafilter in the first filtration step (col. 5, lines 25-32), corresponding to 0.2 µm), whereby generating a first retentate and a first permeate (UF retentate and UF permeate, col. 3, lines 14-17). According to the instant specification at p. 26, lines 6-11, a microfilter is considered to be a filter with a pore size from about 0.1 to about 10 µm. The ultrafilters as disclosed by Black have pore sizes from 0.2-1 µm, and are therefore considered to be microfilters.
passing the first permeate through a second separation unit comprising at least one nanofilter (NF), whereby generating a second retentate and a second permeate – “the UF permeate is collected and passed through a NF membrane (MWCO 500-20,000) to form a high sugar content NF retentate…and a low sugar content NF permeate.” (col. 3, lines 25-30); and
combining a portion of one or more components selected from the group consisting of: the feed juice of the first fruit, the first retentate, the second permeate, or the combinations thereof, whereby generating the fruit beverage – “The NF [i.e., second] permeate is then recombined with the UF [i.e., first] retentate to form a low B/A [Brix/acid] ratio fruit juice fraction.” (col. 3, lines 54-56),
wherein the fruit beverage comprises:
one or more natural sugars including sucrose, glucose, and fructose (see “Analysis” table, “Low-Sugar Juice”, col. 6, line 51 – col. 7, line 11);
Vitamin C (see “Analysis” table, “Low-Sugar Juice”, col. 6, line 51 – col. 7, line 11); and
a limonoid – limonin (col. 3, lines 30-33),
wherein the limonoid concentration is reduced by at least 7% compared to the feed juice – the limonoid concentration is implicitly reduced by at least 7% since the disclosed filter pore sizes align with those presented in the instant specification. MPEP § 2112.01(I) states, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).”
Black discloses a low-sugar orange juice prepared by passing feed juice through an ultrafilter/microfilter with a MWCO of 20,000 Da (col. 5, lines 25-32), which corresponds to 0.2 µm as indicated above, and subsequently passing the filtrate through a nanofilter with a MWCO of 500 Da (col. 5, lines 44-49). The instant specification provides for embodiments of the invention comprising a microfilter with pore size ranging from 0.1-0.3 µm (p. 26, lines 10-11) and a nanofilter with a MWCO from about 300 Da to about 500 Da (p. 26, lines 28-30). Since the method disclosed by Black is the same as the method of the invention, the product will be substantially the same, including the limonoid concentration.
wherein the Vitamin C, the one or more natural sugars, and the limonoid are all originated from the feed juice of the first fruit – Black does not disclose adding external Vitamin C, sugar, or limonoids. Therefore, Black teaches that the Vitamin C, the sugar, and the limonoid are all originated from the feed juice of the first fruit.
wherein the fruit beverage is substantially free of external ingredients – Black teaches that the fruit juice provided for the filtration method can be used “as is” after extraction from the fruit or preliminarily filtered to remove seeds, pulp, and miscellaneous solids (col. 2, lines 49-52). Black does not require the fruit beverage to include external ingredients, stating that the low B/A ratio OJ fraction “can be sweetened with one or more high-potency sweeteners” (col. 4, lines 53-55). This is not required (see claim 12). Therefore, Black teaches that the fruit beverage is substantially free of external ingredients.
For these reasons, claim 1 is anticipated by Black.
Regarding claim 5, Black teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the fruit beverage has a Brix value reduced by about 20% to about 90%, or by about 30% to about 80%, or by about 40% to about 70%, or by about 50% to about 60% compared with the feed juice – Black discloses that the Brix value of the starting juice is 11.8, and the Brix value of the low-sugar juice (i.e., fruit beverage) is 4.3 (see “Analysis” table, col. 6, line 51 – col. 7, line 11). The low-sugar juice therefore has a Brix value that is 36% of the starting juice, i.e., a 64% reduction in the Brix value compared with the feed juice. 64% is seen to be about 60%.
Claim 5 is therefore anticipated by Black.
Regarding claim 6, Black teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the fruit beverage has a total sugars concentration reduced by about 20% to about 90%, or by about 30% to about 80%, or by about 40% to about 70%, compared with the feed juice.
Black teaches that the total sugars are reduced by 72% - the sum of glucose, fructose, and sucrose in the starting juice is 9.4%, and the sum of those sugars in the low-sugar juice is 2.63% (see “Analysis” table, col. 6, line 51 – col. 7, line 11). The low-sugar juice contains 28% of the sugar of the starting juice, or a 72% reduction in total sugars.
Claim 6 is therefore anticipated by Black.
Regarding claim 7, Black teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the fruit beverage has a sucrose concentration reduced by about 20% to about 90%, or by about 30% to about 80%, compared with the feed juice – Black discloses that the sucrose concentration of the starting juice is 4.7%, and the sucrose concentration of the low-sugar juice (i.e., fruit beverage) is 0.84% (see “Analysis” table, col. 6, line 51 – col. 7, line 11). The low-sugar juice therefore has a sucrose concentration that is 18% of the starting juice, i.e., an 82% reduction in the sucrose concentratin compared with the feed juice. 82% is seen to be about 80%.
Claim 7 is therefore anticipated by Black.
Regarding claim 8, Black teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the fruit beverage has a glucose concentration reduced by about 20% to about 90%, or by about 30% to about 80%, or by about 40% to about 70%, or by about 50% to about 60%, compared with the feed juice – Black discloses that the glucose concentration of the starting juice is 2.2%, and the glucose concentration of the low-sugar juice (i.e., fruit beverage) is 0.86% (see “Analysis” table, col. 6, line 51 – col. 7, line 11). The low-sugar juice therefore has a glucose concentration that is 39% of the starting juice, i.e., a 61% reduction in the glucose concentration compared with the feed juice. 61% is seen to be about 60%.
Claim 8 is therefore anticipated by Black.
Regarding claim 9, Black teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the fruit beverage has a fructose concentration reduced by about 20% to about 90%, or by about 30% to about 80%, or by about 40% to about 70%, or by about 50% to about 60%, compared with the feed juice – Black discloses that the fructose concentration of the starting juice is 2.5%, and the fructose concentration of the low-sugar juice (i.e., fruit beverage) is 0.93% (see “Analysis” table, col. 6, line 51 – col. 7, line 11). The low-sugar juice therefore has a fructose concentration that is 37% of the starting juice, i.e., a 63% reduction in the fructose concentration compared with the feed juice. 63% is seen to be about 60%.
Claim 9 is therefore anticipated by Black.
Regarding claim 10, Black teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the fruit beverage has a Vitamin C concentration increased by about 1% to about 100%, or from about 10% to about 90%, or from about 20% to about 80%, compared with the first juice of the first fruit – Black discloses that the Vitamin C concentration of the starting juice is 32 mg/100 g, and the Vitamin C concentration of the low-sugar juice (i.e., fruit beverage) is 39 mg/100 g (see “Analysis” table, col. 6, line 51 – col. 7, line 11). The low-sugar juice therefore has a Vitamin C concentration that is 122% of the starting juice, i.e., a 22% increase in the Vitamin C concentration compared with the feed juice.
Claim 10 is therefore anticipated by Black.
Regarding claim 11, Black teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the fruit beverage has a second limonoid concentration, wherein the second limonoid concentration is reduced by at least about 10 compared with the first limonoid concentration of the feed juice – the limonoid concentration is implicitly reduced by at least 10% since the disclosed filter pore sizes align with those presented in the instant specification. MPEP § 2112.01(I) states, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).”
Black discloses a low-sugar orange juice prepared by passing feed juice through an ultrafilter/microfilter with a MWCO of 20,000 Da (col. 5, lines 25-32), which corresponds to 0.2 µm as indicated regarding claim 1 above, and subsequently passing the filtrate through a nanofilter with a MWCO of 500 Da (col. 5, lines 44-49). The instant specification provides for embodiments of the invention comprising a microfilter with pore size ranging from 0.1-0.3 µm (p. 26, lines 10-11) and a nanofilter with a MWCO from about 300 Da to about 500 Da (p. 26, lines 28-30). Since the method disclosed by Black is the same as the method of the invention, the product will be substantially the same, including the limonoid concentration.
Claim 11 is therefore anticipated by Black.
Regarding claim 12, Black teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first retentate comprises suspended fruit solids from the first fruit – “The UF retentate [i.e., first retentate] is comprised primarily of water, cloud components, pulp, oil soluble flavors, and oil soluble colors.” (col. 3, lines 17-19). Cloud components and pulp are seen as suspended fruit solids.
Claim 12 is therefore anticipated by Black.
Regarding claim 13, Black teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first separation unit comprises at least one micro-filter having an averaged pore size in a range from 0.1 to 0.3 micrometer – Black discloses a filter comprising an ultrafiltration membrane with pore size up to 1 µm corresponding to a molecular weight cut-off (MWCO) up to 100,000 Da (col. 2, lines 60-63). Specifically, Black teaches a 20,000 Da ultrafilter in the first filtration step (col. 5, lines 25-32), corresponding to 0.2 µm. According to the instant specification at p. 26, lines 6-11, a microfilter is considered to be a filter with a pore size from about 0.1 to about 10 µm. As such, Black teaches a microfilter having a 0.2 µm pore size in the first separation step.
Claim 13 is therefore anticipated by Black.
Regarding claim 14, Black teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the second separation unit comprises at least one nano-filter having an averaged molecular weight cut-off (MWCO) in a range from about 250 Da to about 800 Da – “the UF permeate is collected and passed through a NF [nano-filter] membrane (MWCO 500-20,000) to form a high sugar content NF retentate…and a low sugar content NF permeate.” (col. 3, lines 25-30). Specifically, Black teaches a 500 Da nanofilter in the second filtration step (col. 5, lines 45-49).
Claim 14 is therefore anticipated by Black.
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black, Jr. et al. (US 5,403,604 cited on the IDS filed on 18 August 2022) in view of Cetrulo et al. (US 2013/0251873 A1, cited on the IDS filed on 18 August 2022).
Regarding claim 2, Black teaches the method of claim 1.
Black does not teach that the method further comprises adding a portion of a second fruit source derived from a second fruit during the combining step, whereby generating the fruit beverage comprising the second fruit source.
However, Cetrulo teaches the addition of added sinking pulp (or bottom pulp) to provide an improved citrus juice beverage which has a relatively low caloric content while exhibiting a mouth feel and taste profile very similar to 100% citrus juice ([0010] – [0011]). The citrus juice source and the pulp source are exemplified by orange as the source, but other citrus sources can be suitable depending on the particular product being prepared ([0021]). In Example 1, 10 weight percent of wet floating pulp was added to a reduced-Brix orange not-from-concentrate orange juice ([0062]), resulting in good taste and texture which simulated that of 100% whole orange juice ([0064]).
It is noted that according to the instant specification, “the second fruit source can be derived from a second fruit that can be the same as or distinct from the fruit of the feed juice. The second fruit source can be derived from two or more fruits, wherein at least one of the two or more fruits is distinct from the fruit of the feed juice” (p. 21, lines 18-21).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the method of Black by incorporating orange pulp into the low-sugar juice as taught by Cetrulo, See MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Black teaches the base method resulting in a low-sugar orange juice comprising a combination of the UF retentate (first retentate), the low sugar stream (second filtrate), and water (col. 6, lines 25-35), resulting in a low-Brix juice composition (see “Analysis” table, col. 6, line 51 – col. 7, line 11). Cetrulo teaches that adding pulp to a reduced-Brix orange juice (i.e., the product the base method) provides improved texture, simulating that of 100% whole orange juice ([0062] – [0064]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that adding pulp to the low-Brix orange juice composition of Black as taught by Cetrulo would have yielded the predictable result of improving the texture of the low-sugar orange juice beverage.
Claim 2 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Black and Cetrulo teach the method of claim 2.
Black does not teach that the second fruit is selected from a group consisting of citrus, acerola, monk fruit, and combinations thereof.
However, Cetrulo teaches that the second fruit is citrus, and the citrus juice source and the pulp source are exemplified by orange as the source, but other citrus sources can be suitable depending on the particular product being prepared ([0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select citrus (orange) as the second fruit source with the same motivation and with the same expectation of success as described regarding claim 2 above.
Claim 3 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 4, Black and Cetrulo teach the method of claim 2.
Black does not teach that the second fruit source comprises a natural part of a second fruit.
However, Cetrulo teaches the addition of added sinking pulp (or bottom pulp) to provide an improved citrus juice beverage which has a relatively low caloric content while exhibiting a mouth feel and taste profile very similar to 100% citrus juice ([0010] – [0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select citrus (orange) pulp as the second fruit source with the same motivation and with the same expectation of success as described regarding claim 2 above.
Claim 4 is therefore rendered obvious.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black, Jr. et al. (US 5,403,604 cited on the IDS filed on 18 August 2022) in view of Cetrulo et al. (US 2013/0251873 A1, cited on the IDS filed on 18 August 2022), Sandee (Sandee, A. (2015, March 5). Acerola Citrus Juice. Colorful Foodie. Accessed on 21 May 2025 from https://colorfulfoodie.com/acerola-citrus-juice%EF%BB%BF/), and Bon Appetit (The Buzz: Monk Fruit Sugar. (2017, July 19). Bon Appetit. Accessed on 21 May 2025 from https://www.bamco.com/blog/buzz-monk-fruit-sugar/).
Regarding claim 15, Black teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the feed juice is a not-from-concentrate (NFC) orange juice – Black teaches that the fruit juice provided for the filtration method (feed juice) can be used “as is” after extraction from the fruit or preliminarily filtered to remove seeds, pulp, and miscellaneous solids (i.e., not from concentrate) (col. 2, lines 49-52). Black teaches that the fruit juice is orange juice (col. 2, lines 47-48).
wherein the fruit beverage comprises:
one or more natural sugars including sucrose, glucose, and fructose (see “Analysis” table, “Low-Sugar Juice”, col. 6, line 51 – col. 7, line 11);
wherein the total sugars concentration is reduced by at least 30% compared with the feed juice – Black teaches that the Brix value refers to the weigh percent of total soluble solids in the fruit juice composition, and the Brix value will be within a few percent of the sugar content in weigh percent because sugars (sucrose, fructose, and glucose) usually represent in excess of 95% by weight of the soluble solids (col. 3, lines 7-13). Since Black discloses that the Brix value of the fruit beverage is reduced by 64% compared with the feed juice as described regarding claim 5 above, Black also discloses that the total sugar concentration is reduced by a substantially similar amount.
Vitamin C (see “Analysis” table, “Low-Sugar Juice”, col. 6, line 51 – col. 7, line 11),
wherein the concentration of Vitamin C is increased by at least about 20% compared with the feed juice – Black discloses that the Vitamin C concentration of the starting juice is 32 mg/100 g, and the Vitamin C concentration of the low-sugar juice (i.e., fruit beverage) is 39 mg/100 g (see “Analysis” table, col. 6, line 51 – col. 7, line 11). The low-sugar juice therefore has a Vitamin C concentration that is 122% of the starting juice, i.e., a 22% increase in the Vitamin C concentration compared with the feed juice.
Black does not teach that the method further comprises adding during the combining step a portion of a second fruit source comprising orange pulp, NFC acerola puree, and monk fruit juice, whereby forming a further fruit beverage, wherein the further fruit beverage has a 100% identity to the feed juice and the second fruit source; wherein the further fruit beverage is substantially free of external ingredients.
It is noted that according to the instant specification, “the second fruit source can be derived from a second fruit that can be the same as or distinct from the fruit of the feed juice. The second fruit source can be derived from two or more fruits, wherein at least one of the two or more fruits is distinct from the fruit of the feed juice” (p. 21, lines 18-21).
Regarding the orange pulp, Cetrulo teaches the addition of added sinking pulp (or bottom pulp) to provide an improved citrus juice beverage which has a relatively low caloric content while exhibiting a mouth feel and taste profile very similar to 100% citrus juice ([0010] – [0011]). The citrus juice source and the pulp source are exemplified by orange as the citrus source ([0021]). In Example 1, 10 weight percent of wet floating pulp was added to a reduced-Brix orange not-from-concentrate orange juice ([0062]), resulting in good taste and texture which simulated that of 100% whole orange juice ([0064]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the method of Black by incorporating orange pulp into the low-sugar juice as taught by Cetrulo, See MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Black teaches the base method resulting in a low-sugar orange juice comprising a combination of the UF retentate (first retentate), the low sugar stream (second filtrate), and water (col. 6, lines 25-35), resulting in a low-Brix juice composition (see “Analysis” table, col. 6, line 51 – col. 7, line 11). Cetrulo teaches that adding pulp to a reduced-Brix orange juice (i.e., the product the base method) provides improved texture, simulating that of 100% whole orange juice ([0062] – [0064]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that adding pulp to the low-Brix orange juice composition of Black as taught by Cetrulo would have yielded the predictable result of improving the texture of the low-sugar orange juice beverage.
Regarding the NFC acerola puree, Sandee discloses an acerola citrus juice prepared by juicing navel oranges, grapefruits, acerolas and lemon juice (p. 2, recipe). Sandee further discloses that “In Brazil, it’s quite common to have Acerola + Orange juice for the taste and for fighting and preventing colds” (p.2, ¶ 2), and “a mix of citrus and Acerola makes the best immune system defense juice there is” (p. 1, ¶ 2) due to high vitamin C in acerolas (p. 2, ¶ 1). Since the ingredients are juiced, as in a juicer, to prepare the beverage, the juice is a not-from-concentrate juice. It is considered that the juice may contain some pulp from the fruits (i.e., some amount of acerola puree).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Black with the teachings of Sandee to include NFC acerola puree in the fruit beverage product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to further increase the amount of vitamin C in the low-sugar orange juice of Black to provide a juice that supports immune health by incorporating acerola, which, as disclosed by Sandee, is high in vitamin C (p. 2, ¶ 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success for doing so because Sandee teaches that acerola + orange juice is a common combination for the taste and for fighting and preventing colds (p. 2, ¶ 2).
Regarding the monk fruit juice, Black teaches that the low sugar juice fraction can be sweetened with a high potency sweetener, such as aspartame (col. 1, lines 13-15). In addition to adding pulp to a reduced-Brix orange juice, Cetrulo teaches that another aspect of their invention is an improved method and product by which a non-nutritive sweetener helps to increase sweetness of a citrus beverage, but does not bring to the beverage an undesirable or unpleasant aftertaste ([0016]). Cetrulo discloses that sucralose, aspartame, and other such low-calorie or no-calorie sweeteners as might exist or be developed are preferred for the invention ([0042]).
Bon Appetit teaches that monk fruit liquid extract derived from pressing the juice from monk fruit was a known zero-calorie natural sweetener before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (pp. 1-2, bridging paragraph). Bon Appetit also discloses that monk fruit is commonly used as a substitution for sugar in beverages (p. 2, ¶ 2), and to look for pure lo han guo (monk fruit) sweeteners with no additives since added ingredients such as erythritol, molasses, sugar, and dextrose may add calories or change the taste of the natural sweetener (p. 2, ¶ 3). Monk fruit sweetener is therefore seen as a suitable non-nutritive sweetener to add to a reduced-Brix orange juice as taught by Black and Cetrulo.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the aspartame in the method of Black with monk fruit extract/juice as disclosed by Bon Appetit to sweeten the low-sugar orange juice as taught by Black and Cetrulo, See MPEP § 2143(I)(B). The method of Black differs from the claimed method in that Black sweetens the low-sugar orange juice with aspartame and the claimed method uses monk fruit juice as a sugar-free sweetener. Bon Appetit teaches that monk fruit is commonly used as a substitution for sugar in beverages (p. 2, ¶ 2). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that adding monk fruit extract/juice as disclosed by Bon Appetit to the low-Brix orange juice composition of Black would have yielded the predictable result of sweetening the low-sugar orange juice beverage without adding additional calories.
Modification of the method of Black to add orange pulp, NFC acerola puree, and monk fruit juice as indicated above provides the claimed further fruit beverage. As the prior art provides that the added ingredients are from the source fruits, the suggested modifications also provide a further fruit beverage that has a 100% identity to the feed juice and the second fruit source; wherein the further fruit beverage is substantially free of external ingredients.
For these reasons, claim 15 is rendered obvious.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections:
Applicant has overcome the objections to the claims by amendment. Accordingly, the objections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112:
Applicant has overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of claims 1-15 based on amendment to the claims. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102: Applicant’s arguments filed on 3 November 2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argued that independent claim 1 requires, in part, “wherein the fruit beverage is substantially free of external ingredients.” When referring to “substantially free” the specification states “it is intended that the component is not intentionally added to compositions of the disclosure.” (Paragraph [0030]). “The specification defines “external ingredients” as “materials that are not a part naturally present in the original fruit(s) where the fruit beverage is derived from.” (Paragraph [0038].) The specification further defines “external ingredients” as including “excess water added into the fruit juice as a diluent.” (Id.) Accordingly, independent claim 1 recites a method of making a fruit beverage wherein the fruit beverage is substantially free of external ingredients, including artificial sweeteners and added water (Remarks, p. 7, ¶ 7 – p. 8, ¶ 1). Applicant argued that the methods and compositions of Black rely on the addition of external water. While describing its process, Black states "the water content of the low B/A ratio fraction is adjusted so that the juice fraction is substantially identical to the original fruit juice . . ." (Col. 3, lines 56-60.) Black further explains "[w]ater can be added at any point in the process to dilute any stream if desired." (Col. 4, lines 22-23.) Consistent with the statements regarding its invention, Black's only low B/A ratio juice in the Examples has 555 grams of water added to make a low B/A ratio juice. (Col. 6, lines 25-30.) Accordingly, Black does not disclose, suggest, or render obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art a method of making a fruit beverage wherein the fruit beverage is substantially free of external ingredients, including added water (Remarks, p. 8, ¶ 3).
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it is not persuasive. MPEP 2131.02(III) states, “A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination.” Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962)).” Regarding the water, Black teaches, “Optionally, the NF permeate is further passed through an RO membrane to remove water. The RO permeate (water) can be disposed of but preferably is recirculated to any other process stream to adjust the water content if desired.” (col. 3, lines 64-68). The low B/A ratio juice in the Example of Black is made up of UF Retentate, Low Sugar stream, and water (col. 6, lines 25-35). The Low Sugar stream is the RO retentate (col. 6, line 22). Since the NF permeate was passed through an RO membrane to remove water, and Black teaches that the RO permeate (water) preferably is recirculated to any other process stream to adjust the water content if desired, one of ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage that the water added to the low B/A ratio juice is RO water obtained from the NF permeate of the juice. This water originated from the feed juice (i.e., is naturally present in the original fruit(s) where the fruit beverage is derived from), and as such is not an external ingredient.
Applicant next argued that the methods and compositions of Black rely on the addition of external sweetener, citing various instances in Black where adding high potency sweeteners is discussed (Remarks, p. 8, ¶ 4 – p. 9, ¶ 2).
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it is not persuasive. Although Black teaches that high potency sweeteners may be added, they are not required. Black teaches that the fruit juice provided for the filtration method can be used “as is” after extraction from the fruit or preliminarily filtered to remove seeds, pulp, and miscellaneous solids (col. 2, lines 49-52). Black does not require the fruit beverage to include external ingredients, stating that the low B/A ratio OJ fraction “can be sweetened with one or more high-potency sweeteners” (col. 4, lines 53-55). This is not required (see claim 12). Therefore, Black teaches that the fruit beverage is substantially free of external ingredients, including external sweeteners.
For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejections of claims 1, and 5-14 are maintained.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant’s arguments filed on 3 November 2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that where Black fails to disclose methods or compositions that are substantially free of external ingredients, none of Cetrulo, Sandee, or Bon Apetit remedy the deficiencies of Black, and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the combination of the cited prior art to disclose or render obvious claim 1, and accordingly its dependent claims (p. 9, ¶ 4 – p. 10, ¶ 1).
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it is not persuasive. As described above regarding the arguments toward the 102 rejections, Black teaches that the fruit beverage is substantially free of external ingredients, including external sweeteners.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 2-4, and 15 are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 James Shellhammer whose telephone number is (703) 756-5525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/JAMES P. SHELLHAMMER/Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793