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 .
Response to Amendment
In applicant’s reply on 09/30/2025, the claims were amended. Based on these amendments, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been revised below as well as rejections of the newly added claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 11 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Firary (US 2005/0100635 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).
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 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 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).
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).
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 2, 9, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Firary in view of Heidenbach (US 2014/0170262 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Firary teaches the limitations of claim 1. It further teaches adding an enzyme to the vegetable juice or the fruit juice during or before the concentrating step (enzyme step 14 before filtration step 15 Fig. 1 Par. 0022-0024).
Firary does not teach continuously or intermittently adding an enzyme.
Heidenbach, in the same field of endeavor, teaches continuously or intermittently adding an enzyme (enzymes were added every 2-3 days Par. 0068).
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 intermittent enzyme addition of Heidenbach. One would have been motivated to make this modification to preserve quality and reduce sugar content (Heidenbach Par. 0002).
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 12, Firary teaches the limitations of claim 11. It further teaches adding an enzyme to the vegetable juice or the fruit juice during or before the concentrating step (enzyme step 14 before filtration step 15 Fig. 1 Par. 0022-0024).
Firary does not teach continuously or intermittently adding an enzyme.
Heidenbach, in the same field of endeavor, teaches continuously or intermittently adding an enzyme (enzymes were added every 2-3 days Par. 0068).
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 intermittent enzyme addition of Heidenbach. One would have been motivated to make this modification to preserve quality and reduce sugar content (Heidenbach Par. 0002).
Regarding Claim 15, Firary teaches the limitations of claim 1. It further teaches adding an enzyme to the vegetable juice or the fruit juice during or before the concentrating step (enzyme step 14 before filtration step 15 Fig. 1 Par. 0022-0024).
Firary does not teach intermittently adding an enzyme.
Heidenbach, in the same field of endeavor, teaches intermittently adding an enzyme (enzymes were added every 2-3 days Par. 0068).
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 intermittent enzyme addition of Heidenbach. One would have been motivated to make this modification to preserve quality and reduce sugar content (Heidenbach Par. 0002).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Firary.
Regarding Claim 7, Firary teaches the limitations of claim 1. Firary further teaches filtration to remove water-insoluble plant components from the permeate to the retinate, while including more water-soluble components such as sugars and vitamins in the permeate (Par. 0024-0025). It does not teach the concentrating step and the enzymatically processing step are carried out for 30 minutes or more and 3 hours or less.
Though Firary is silent regarding how long to filter the product, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the filtration of Firary for a period of time that would yield a product with the desired nutrient composition of the concentrated product. As seen above, the concentrating and enzymatic processing steps occur simultaneously (enzyme is still active during filtration step Par. 0025) and would therefore have the same duration.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Firary in view of Moss (US 2016/0374371 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Firary teaches the limitations of claim 1. It further teaches adding an enzyme to the vegetable juice or the fruit juice during or before the concentrating step (enzyme step 14 before filtration step 15 Fig. 1 Par. 0022-0024).
Firary does not teach continuously adding an enzyme.
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 (Jolly Par. 0064).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Firary in view of Jolly (US 2007/0020744 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Firary teaches the limitations of claim 16. It further 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 09/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Firary does not teach a process using a vegetable or fruit other than sweet potato. As seen in the amended rejection to claims 1 and 11 above, Firary teaches the use of plants such as a fruit, vegetable, and other plant parts (e.g., root, tuber, etc.) and then specifically teaches kale and tomato as examples (Par. 0008, Par. 0028). It further teaches that sweet potato is merely an embodiment (Par. 0010). One would reasonably look at the teachings of Firary and use kale, tomato, or another fruit or vegetable as the chosen plant.
Applicant argues new claim 14 is not taught by the art. Examiner recognizes neither Firary or Heidenbach teach the new claim. As seen in the above rejection of claim 14, the reference Moss has been brought in to teach the new limitation of continuous addition of enzymes (Par. 0064).
Applicant argues new claim 16 is not taught by the art. As seen in the above rejection, Firary does teach tomato as the plant to juice (Par. 0008, Par. 0028).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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