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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-12,14,15 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blair(US 20030064130) in view of Hubei(CN 109832362), Yu(US 7779753), and Dzhaparidz(SU 1083953).
Regarding claims 1,6,9-11, Blair teaches a method of preparing compressed whole tea leaf dip, the method comprising
a) a step of withering of tea leaves to de-moisturize tea leaves ([0041]);
b) a step of shaking and rolling of tea leaves to breakdown the cell structure of tea leaves and allow the oxidation process ([0042], table 2);
c) a step of fermenting the processed leaves to reduce astringency and bitterness ([0045]);
d) a step of de-enzyming the processed leaves through hot air drying to deactivate the enzymes ([0052-0053]);
f) a step of sorting the processed tea leaves to separate whole tea leaves from the damaged tea leaves ([0054]);
h) a step of compressing the tea leaves to reduce the moisture content in the tea leaves and to provide a compressed form of tea leaves which helps in retaining the whole leaf nature of the leaves without breakage ([0044]);
i) a step of disinfecting the tea leaves to reduce the microbial load ([0086], leaves are fired to a final moisture content of 2.5-3.0% which would reduce the microbial load);
j) a step of drying the tea leaves to further reduce the moisture content in the tea leaves ([0086], leaves are dried to reduce the moisture to 2.5-3.0%);
k) a step of packaging the tea leaves to transport the tea leaves for making the tea leaves for ready-to-use ([0073], tea leaves are placed into tea bags)
Blair does not specifically teach a step of e) a step of baking the processed leaves to add flavor (150). However, Hubei teaches a method of making a dried tea composition similar to Blair in which the tea leaves are baked in order to reduce the moisture content to 10%(example 1). It would have been obvious to use the baking method in Hubei to dry the tea leaves in Blair since this is an established and effective method of drying tea leaves. Baking the tea leaves would concentrate the tea flavor and “add flavor” as claimed.
Blair does not specifically teach g) a step of tying the leaves with a string to tie the individual leaves together and wherein the step of compressing the tea leaves (180) result in unfurling of tea leaves without significant breakage when dipped in hot water during the preparation of tea beverage. However, Yu teaches a method of making a tied tea ball that is compressed and bound together with a string(col 1, line 66-col 2, line 5). Yu teaches when placed in hot water the tea leaves unfurl without significant breakage(claim 5, col 2, line 6-25). Yu teaches the method creates exposure of substantially all of the leaves to water, which gives the beverage a rich tea flavor(col 2, line 18-25). It would have been obvious to modify Blair in view of Yu by forming a compressed tea ball tied together with a string, in order to create exposure of substantially all of the leaves to water, which gives the beverage a rich tea flavor.
Blair teaches compressing the leaves but does not specifically teach that the compressing step is done by a compression chamber and a piston inside the compression chamber, and the piston is configured to compress the tea leaves (180) based on applied pressure on the piston. However, Dzhaparidz teaches a method of compressing tea leaves in a compression chamber with a piston using applied pressure(abstract). It would have been obvious to compress the tea leaves of Blair by compressing tea leaves in a compression chamber with a piston as taught in Dzhaparidz since this is an effective method of compressing tea leaves.
Blair, Hubei, Yu and Dzhaparidz do not teach “wherein and the tied tea leaves are put inside the compression chamber while keeping the string out of the chamber through an outlet and the piston is manually configured to be pressed to compress the tea leaves (180) in semi-dry state of the tea leaves (180).
However, it would have been obvious to keep the string out of the compression chamber so that the string does not get stuck to the leaves. As such, conventional tea bags have a separate string that allows a user to dip the tea bag in without touching the water.
It would have been obvious to adjust the pressure of the piston through manual compression depending on the amount of compression desired in the tea leaves.
Regarding claim 2, Blair teaches that the leaves are dried to a content of between 64 and 70% during withering and are then further compressed([0041). Blair is silent on the moisture content after compression. However, one or ordinary skill in the art would expect the compression to release some water, thus reasonably lowering the water content to 10 to 40% as claimed.
Furthermore, since the tea leaves are eventually dried to a 2.5-3%(0053]). water content, it would have been obvious to remove as much water as possible during compression, e.g. to a moisture content of 10-40%, in order to save time/money in a further drying step.
Regarding claim 3, Blair teaches that the leaves are dried to reduce the moisture to 2.5-3.0%([0053]).
Regarding claim 4, Blair teaches that the leaves are unbroken fresh whole tea leaves([0041]fresh, whole tea leaves are withered and compressed, [0055], large whole leaf tea leaves are preferred, table 2).
Regarding claim 5, Blair teaches that the size of the lead used can be varied as per the requirement(see table 2, different size tea leaves can be provided as desired).
Regarding claim 7, Yu teaches that the tied compressed tea ball design allows for reuse of the tea composition(col 2, line 26-34). It would have been obvious to use the tea dip of Blair in view of Yu for 2 to 3 uses since it provides a rich tea flavor and since it can be used multiple times, thus saving money and resources.
Regarding claim 8, Blair teaches that the tea is black tea([0016]).
Regarding claim 12, Blair does not specifically teach a vacuum or nitrogen flush. However, this method is “optional” and therefore not required.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Dzhaparidz does not specifically teach that the compression chamber is a plurality of compression chambers, and wherein the compression process is replicated in the plurality of compression chambers with the predefined amount of leaves for the required output. However, a connection of compression chambers is obvious according to MPEP 2144.04 VI duplication of parts, since the chambers perform the same function. It would have been obvious to adjust the shape of the chamber in order to effectively compress the tea leaves.
Claims 13 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blair(US 20030064130) in view of Hubei(CN 109832362), Yu(US 7779753), and Dzhaparidz(SU 1083953) further in view of Fujita(JP 2011083278A).
Regarding claim 13, Blair teaches disinfecting the compressed leaves via firing but does not specifically teach disinfecting the compressed tea leaves via UV chambers to disinfect and reduce contaminations from various pathogens. However, Fujita teaches a method of disinfecting tea leaves via a UV chamber as claimed(abstract). It would have been obvious to use a UV chamber to disinfect the compressed tea leaves of Blair since Fujita teaches that the use of a UV chamber is an acceptable method for disinfecting tea leaves.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Blair, Hubei, Yu and Dzhaparidz do not teach “wherein and the tied tea leaves are put inside the compression chamber while keeping the string out of the chamber through an outlet and the piston is manually configured to be pressed to compress the tea leaves (180) in semi-dry state of the tea leaves (180).
However, it would have been obvious to keep the string out of the compression chamber so that the string does not get stuck to the leaves. As such, conventional tea bags have a separate string that allows a user to dip the tea bag in without touching the water.
It would have been obvious to adjust the pressure of the piston through manual compression depending on the amount of compression desired in the tea leaves.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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
Prosecution Insights