DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/18/2025 has been entered.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 14 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “said at least one cycle” in line 6 and “at least one pressure cycle” in line 5. In order to remain consistent “said at least one cycle” should be changed to “said at least one pressure cycle”.
Claim 5 recites “the infusion material” in lines 2 and 3, however claim 1 recites “at least one infusion material”. In order to have proper form the “the infusion material” should be changed to “the at least one infusion material”.
Claims 14 and 15 each recites “the infusion material”, however claim 1 recites “at least one infusion material”. In order to have proper form the “the infusion material” should be changed to “the at least one infusion material”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “infusion material” in lines 10-11, it is unclear if “infusion material” is the same as or different from “at least one infusion material” recited in line 3.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites “the solid consumable substance”. However, claim 1 only recites “a consumable substance”. It is unclear what “the solid consumable substance” is referring to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the solid consumable substance”.
Claims 2, 4-11, 14-15 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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, 2, 4-11, 14-15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ozegowski DE 102005007885 (Espacenet Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Ozegowski discloses a process for infusing a consumable substance comprising: placing a desired amount of at least one infusion material (biomass) into a chamber (reactor 1) (Espacenet Translation [0037], [0023], [0026], [0001], [0004], [0021], Fig. 1); placing a desired amount of consumable substance (fat or oil) into said chamber (Espacenet Translation [0037], [0026], [0009]-[0010], [0020], [0021]); applying at least one pressure cycle ([0039]) within said chamber while a chamber opening in a bottom of the chamber is closed (opening closed by bottom lid 3)(Fig. 1, [0036]), wherein said at least one cycle comprises reducing the pressure within said chamber to a first pressure and subsequently adjusting pressure within the chamber to a second pressure to produce an infused liquid (Espacenet Translation [0028], [0039]) and passing the infused liquid through a filter (filter 4) ([0036], [0030], Fig.1) at least partially housed in the chamber before draining the infused liquid through the chamber opening (opening closed by lid 3) to trap infusion material (biomass) on a side of the filter opposite the chamber opening, wherein the filter (filter 4) obviously covers an entire cross section of the chamber (reactor 1) upstream of the chamber opening (opening closed by lid 3) (Fig. , Espacenet Translation [0036], [0030]).
Regarding claim 2, Ozegowski discloses that the consumable substance comprises a liquid (oil) (Espacenet Translation [0019]-[0021], [0024]).
Regarding claim 4, Ozegowski obviously discloses that the consumable substance is heated prior to placing the consumable substance in the chamber, since for example Ozegowski discloses that the consumable substance can be a fat, such as tallow, which is a solid at room temperature and in order to supply the consumable substance by spraying the fat which is solid at room temperature would obviously need to be heated to melt the fat to sprayable form (Espacenet Translation [0037], [0024], claim 8). Thus, Ozegowski obviously suggests that the method comprises a step of substantially melting a solid consumable substance prior to applying the at least one pressure cycle within said chamber.
Regarding claim 5, Ozegowski discloses that the chamber is sealed from the surrounding atmosphere prior to placing the infusion material into the chamber or after placing the infusion material into said chamber or after placing the consumable substance into said chamber (Espacenet Translation [0036], [0037], Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Ozegowski discloses that the first pressure is -11.812 inches of mercury (-400mbar = -11.812 inches of mercury) (Espacenet Translation [0028], claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Ozegowski obviously discloses that the second pressure is atmospheric pressure, since the vacuum is obviously stopped after the extraction and in order to allow the reactor to be opened to remove the extraction product the pressure obviously needs to be atmospheric. It has been held that "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143.I.E).
Regarding claim 8, Ozegowski discloses in an embodiment that the pressure can be adjusted from a first pressure -400mbar (-11.812 inches of mercury) for evaporation and to a second pressure of -15 to -30mbar (-0.44295 inches of mercury to -0.886 inches of mercury) (Espacenet Translation [0028], claim 1) for extraction and Ozegowski discloses that extraction can be carried out at a negative pressure in the range of 400mbar to 15mbar, and to therefore modify the second pressure to be within the range of -0.886 inches of mercury to -11.812 inches of mercury such that the second pressure is within the claimed range, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Ozegowski obviously discloses that the consumable substance is heated prior to placing the consumable substance in the chamber, since for example Ozegowski discloses that the consumable substance can be a fat, such as tallow, which is a solid at room temperature and in order to supply the consumable substance by spraying the fat which is solid at room temperature would obviously need to be heated to melt the fat to sprayable form (Espacenet Translation [0037],[0024])
Regarding claim 10, Ozegowski discloses that the consumable substance is heated after being placed in the chamber (Espacenet Translation [0027], [0039], claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, Ozegowski discloses that the consumable substance is maintained within a temperature range of about 70 °F to 302 °F (extraction is carried out at temperatures up to 150 °C= 302 °F) (Espacenet Translation claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, Ozegowski discloses that the infusion material comprises fruit (biomass can be elderberries) (Espacenet Translation [0001], [0004]).
Regarding claim 15, Ozegowski discloses that the infusion material comprises herbs or botanicals (Espacenet Translation [0001], [0004]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered and Ozegowski DE 102005007885 has been relied upon to teach the new claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nishino JP H06165640 discloses a container with a filter used for carrying out vacuum extraction of coffee (Abstract, Figs. 1-3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY AXTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-0316. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00- 5:30.
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, ERIK KASHNIKOW can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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/
Ashley AxtellExaminer, Art Unit 1792
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights