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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In applicant’s reply on 04/29/2026, the claims were amended. Based on these amendments, new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 can be found below. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been revised below as well as rejections of the newly added claim.
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.
Claim 14 is 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.
Claim 14 recites “enzymatically processing the vegetable juice or the fruit juice only simultaneously or parallelly with the concentrating step by continuously adding an enzyme to the vegetable juice or the fruit juice only during the concentrating step”. As written, it is unclear if the use of “only” is referring to the preceding term (the vegetable juice or the fruit juice) or the following term (simultaneously or parallelly/during). Clarification of the terminology is requested to improve clarity. It is noted that there is no support in the disclosure as filed for enzyme addition only during the concentrating step. Applicant discloses enzyme addition during the concentrating step (Par. 0013 of specification filed 09/21/2022), but does not restrict against enzyme addition in another point of the process as well. With this in mind, for examination purposes, the examiner is assuming “only” to be stating that the only ingredient present during enzymatic processing is the vegetable or fruit juice.
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 1-9, 11-12, 14, 16-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Firary (US 2005/0100635 A1) in view of Moss (US 2016/0374371 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Firary teaches a method for producing concentrated juice (water is added to sweet potatoes to form an aqueous sweet potato mixture which is enzymatically treated to produce a sweet potato feed Par. 0010; enzyme-containing feed is concentrated using a filtration unit Par. 0009; filtration to produce permeate and retentate Par. 0024-0025)
comprising continuously concentrating vegetable juice or fruit juice (continuously concentrated plant feed Par. 0025; plant such as fruit or vegetable Abstract)
and enzymatically processing the vegetable juice or the fruit juice simultaneously or parallelly with the concentrating step (enzyme is still active during filtration step, enzyme containing plant feed can be continuously concentrated Par. 0025)
wherein the vegetable juice is other than sweet potato juice (a plant, such as a fruit, vegetable, and other plant parts (e.g., root, tuber, etc.) Par. 0008; kale and tomato Par. 0028)
further comprising adding an enzyme to the vegetable juice or the fruit juice (enzyme step 14 before filtration step 15 Fig. 1 Par. 0022-0024).
Firary does not teach the enzyme is continuously added.
Moss, in the same field of endeavor teaches continuously adding an enzyme (continuously replacing enzymes Par. 0064). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the invention of Firary with the continuous enzyme addition of Moss. One would have been motivated to make this modification to replace enzymes that are consumed during the process (Moss Par. 0064).
Regarding Claim 2, Firary further teaches adding an enzyme to the vegetable juice or the fruit juice (enzyme step 14 Fig. 1 Par. 0022-0024).
Firary does not teach continuously adding an enzyme during the concentrating step.
Moss teaches continuously adding an enzyme during enzymatic processing (continuously replacing enzymes as the enzymes being utilized Par. 0064). It is noted the enzymatic processing of Firary occurs during concentrating (see above rejection of claim 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the invention of Firary with the continuous enzyme addition of Moss. One would have been motivated to make this modification to replace enzymes that are consumed during the process (Moss Par. 0064).
Regarding Claim 3, Firary further teaches the enzymatically processing step uses an enzyme which has an optimum temperature within a temperature range of the vegetable juice or the fruit juice during the concentrating step (activity of enzyme maintained during the filtration step by maintaining the feed at a temperature and pH level at which the enzyme is active, each enzyme or combination of enzymes has temperature and pH ranges in which its activity is optimal Par. 0029).
Regarding Claim 4, Firary further teaches the temperature of the vegetable juice or the fruit juice during the concentrating step is 50°C or higher and 75°C or lower (maintaining at a temperature range of about 130°F to about 150°F Par. 0030, 0045; while maintaining the liquefication enzyme in an active state in the enzyme-containing feed, concentrating the enzyme-containing feed Claim 1; wherein maintaining the liquefication enzyme in an active state in the enzyme-containing feed comprises maintaining the enzyme-containing feed at the temperature and the pH at which the liquefication enzyme is active Claim 4).
Regarding Claim 5, Firary further teaches the enzymatically processing step uses an enzyme which has an optimum pH within a pH range of the vegetable juice or the fruit juice during the concentrating step (activity of enzyme maintained during the filtration step by maintaining the feed at a temperature and pH level at which the enzyme is active, each enzyme or combination of enzymes has temperature and pH ranges in which its activity is optimal Par. 0029).
Regarding Claim 6, Firary further teaches the pH of the vegetable juice or the fruit juice during the concentrating step is 3.0 or more and 5.0 or less. (pH preferably in a range of about 4 to about 5 0045; while maintaining the liquefication enzyme in an active state in the enzyme-containing feed, concentrating the enzyme-containing feed Claim 1; wherein maintaining the liquefication enzyme in an active state in the enzyme-containing feed comprises maintaining the enzyme-containing feed at the temperature and the pH at which the liquefication enzyme is active Claim 4).
Regarding Claim 7, Firary further teaches the concentrating step and the enzymatically processing step are carried out for 30 minutes or more and 3 hours or less (enzyme containing mixture held for about 90 minutes Par. 0045; enzyme is still active during filtration step Par. 0026). As Firary teaches the enzyme treatment and concentration steps may occur simultaneously, one would have found it obvious to run the concentration process for the amount of time taught for the enzyme processing.
Regarding Claim 8, Firary further teaches preheating at least one of vegetables, fruits, the vegetable juice, and the fruit juice, before the enzymatically processing step (heat/hold step 13 Fig. 1 Par. 0021).
Regarding Claim 9, Firary further teaches preheating at least one of vegetables, fruits, the vegetable juice, and the fruit juice, before the adding step (plant mixture subjected to heat/hold step 13 Fig. 1 Par. 0021, enzyme 3 added after heat/hold Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Firary teaches a method for modifying concentrated juice (water is added to sweet potatoes to form an aqueous sweet potato mixture which is enzymatically treated to produce a sweet potato feed Par. 0010; enzyme-containing feed is concentrated using a filtration unit Par. 0009; filtration to produce permeate and retentate Par. 0024-0025; enzyme is still active during filtration step Par. 0025)
comprising continuously concentrating vegetable juice or fruit juice (continuously concentrated plant feed Par. 0025; plant such as fruit or vegetable Abstract)
and enzymatically processing the vegetable juice or the fruit juice simultaneously or parallelly with the concentrating step (enzyme is still active during filtration step, enzyme containing plant feed can be continuously concentrated Par. 0025)
wherein the vegetable juice is other than sweet potato juice (a plant, such as a fruit, vegetable, and other plant parts (e.g., root, tuber, etc.) Par. 0008; kale and tomato Par. 0028).
further comprising adding an enzyme to the vegetable juice or the fruit juice (enzyme step 14 before filtration step 15 Fig. 1 Par. 0022-0024).
Firary does not teach the enzyme is continuously added.
Moss teaches continuously adding an enzyme (continuously replacing enzymes Par. 0064). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the invention of Firary with the continuous enzyme addition of Moss. One would have been motivated to make this modification to replace enzymes that are consumed during the process (Moss Par. 0064).
Regarding Claim 12, Firary further teaches adding the enzyme to the vegetable juice or the fruit juice (enzyme step 14 before filtration step 15 Fig. 1 Par. 0022-0024).
Firary does not teach continuously adding an enzyme during the concentration step.
Moss teaches continuously adding an enzyme during enzymatic processing (continuously replacing enzymes as the enzymes being utilized Par. 0064). It is noted the enzymatic processing of Firary occurs during concentrating (see above rejection of claim 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the invention of Firary with the continuous enzyme addition of Moss. One would have been motivated to make this modification to replace enzymes that are consumed during the process (Moss Par. 0064).
Regarding Claim 14, Firary further teaches enzymatically processing the vegetable juice or the fruit juice only simultaneously or parallelly with the concentrating step by adding an enzyme to the vegetable juice or the fruit juice only (filtration ingredients include only plant, water, and enzyme Par. 0009 Fig. 1; water optional Par. 0019; enzyme is still active during filtration step, enzyme containing plant feed can be continuously concentrated Par. 0025; enzyme step 14 before filtration step 15 Fig. 1 Par. 0022-0024).
Firary does not teach continuously adding an enzyme during the concentrating step.
Moss teaches continuously adding an enzyme during enzymatic processing (continuously replacing enzymes as the enzymes being utilized Par. 0064). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the invention of Firary with the continuous enzyme addition of Moss. One would have been motivated to make this modification to replace enzymes that are consumed during the process (Moss Par. 0064).
Regarding Claim 16, Firary further teaches the vegetable juice or the fruit juice comprises tomato juice (a plant, such as a fruit, vegetable, and other plant parts (e.g., root, tuber, etc.) Par. 0008; kale and tomato Par. 0028).
Regarding Claim 17, Firary further teaches the vegetable juice or the fruit juice is other than potato juice (a plant, such as a fruit, vegetable, and other plant parts (e.g., root, tuber, etc.) Par. 0008; kale and tomato Par. 0028).
Regarding Claim 18, Firary further teaches the juice is vegetable juice (a plant, such as a fruit, vegetable, and other plant parts (e.g., root, tuber, etc.) Par. 0008).
Regarding Claim 19, Firary further teaches the juice is fruit juice (a plant, such as a fruit, vegetable, and other plant parts (e.g., root, tuber, etc.) Par. 0008).
Regarding Claim 21, Firary does not teach enzyme addition and concentration are done simultaneously.
Moss teaches continuously adding an enzyme during enzymatic processing (continuously replacing enzymes as the enzymes being utilized Par. 0064). As the enzymatic processing of Firary occurs during concentrating (see above rejection of claim 1), enzyme would be added during concentration. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the invention of Firary with the continuous enzyme addition of Moss. One would have been motivated to make this modification to replace enzymes that are consumed during the process (Moss Par. 0064).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Firary in view of Moss, further in view of Jolly (US 2007/0020744 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Firary teaches the limitations of claim 16. Firary teaches enzymatically processing, yet it is silent regarding specific enzymes used.
Jolly, in the same field of endeavor, teaches enzymatically processing using deaminase (Enzymes comprising deaminase Par. 0015). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the invention of Firary with the enzyme of Jolly. One would have been motivated to make this modification to improve flavor (Jolly Par. 0055).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Firary does not teach the newly amended claim 1. Moss has been combined to teach the aspects that Finary does not teach (see above rejection).
Applicant argues Moss does not teach continuously concentrating juices while simultaneously or parallelly enzymatically processing. Finary is relied on for this aspect (Par. 0025, see above rejection of claim 1).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, one would have been motivated to make this modification to replace enzymes that are consumed during the process (Moss Par. 0064).
In response to applicant's argument that Moss is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, applicant argues Moss teaches a process which is directed towards treatment of a whole fruit rather than the juice, and is therefore too different of a process to have motivated one to combine them. Firary discloses production of an enzyme treated juice (Par. 0010). Moss teaches enzymatic treatment of fruit to remove intact pulp sacs to produce juice product with pulp (Par. 0043). Therefore, Moss is in the same field of endeavor of fruit juice production and one would have reasonably looked to Moss for ways to improve Firary. Further, Moss is merely relied on to show that it is known in the art to treat fruit with continuous enzyme addition.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the time of carrying out the concentrating and enzymatic treatment is not obvious, the rejection of claim 7 has been amended above to include the processing time as taught by Firary.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Janda (US 5,731,018) discloses a method of producing a fruit or vegetable concentrate using the addition of enzymes (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL M RODGERS whose telephone number is (571)272-7857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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 5712703475. 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.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1792 /ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights