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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/7/25 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-26 and 33-38 are pending and being examined. Claims 27-32 were previously canceled. The rejection of claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the last Office Action has been withdrawn in view of the discussion during the interview held on 9/11/25 (see Interview Summary mailed 9/16/25). The rejection of claim 37 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in the last Office Action has been maintained, see discussion below under Response to Arguments.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 4, [0006], line 8, the word “keytones” should read “ketones”.
On page 9, [0051], line 2, the word “functon” should read “function”.
On page 33, [00108], line 2, “greater,content” is missing a space after the comma and should read “greater, content”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification does not appear to have support for the limitation of “maintaining the quantity of coffee as caffeinated”. The closest support for this limitation is in the background section, paragraph 0008, of the specification, which merely talks about the state of the art and mentions that other processes can lead to adverse flavor creation including decaffeination. Nothing in the specification discusses or gives any guidance on the process of maintaining caffeination during the method as disclosed. Further issues arise as the limitation is “maintaining the treated quantity of coffee as caffeinated” however there is nothing requiring that initial quantity of coffee is caffeinated, in these instances it cannot be “maintained” and it is unclear how this would read on the claim as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 9-10, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quarta et al. [Furfurals removal from roasted coffee powder by vacuum treatment, 2011.], hereinafter Quarta.
Regarding claim 1, Quarta teach a method for rehabilitating coffee, comprising:
placing an untreated quantity of coffee in a pressure-controllable environment (oven connected to vacuum pump), the untreated quantity of coffee including an unprocessed concentration of at least one unwanted congener (5-hydroxy methylfurfural (HMF) and furfural) [Quarta, 2.1, 2.2];
decreasing a pressure of the pressure-controllable environment to a reduced pressure [Quarta, 2.1-2.2];
holding the pressure of the pressure-controllable environment at the reduced pressure for a predetermined period of time [Quarta, 2.2];
during the predetermined period of time, removing the at least one unwanted congener from the untreated quantity of coffee to yield a treated quantity of coffee including a reduced concentration of the at least one unwanted congener, the reduced concentration being smaller than the unprocessed concentration [Quarta, 2.2, Tables 1-2]; and
removing the treated quantity of coffee from the pressure-controllable environment [Quarta, 2.2, last paragraph];
wherein the reduced pressure is between about 35 Torr and about 90 Torr (0.7 to 18.7 kPA or 5 to 140 Torr), [Quarta, 2.2, last paragraph].
Quarta does not explicitly recite wherein the reduced pressure is maintained to within +/- 2 Torr, however it would have been obvious to have maintained the pressure to within the same stable parameters to allow for process consistency and reproducibility, particularly since Quarta explicitly disclose that time is allowed to achieve the desired vacuum (vacuum stability), which depends on the set pressure value and water content of samples, and that the treatment duration is taken or considered once the set pressure value is achieved.
Regarding claim 5, Quarta teach wherein the reduced concentration is about one-half of the unprocessed concentration, see Fig.2 showing the concentration of congener (furfural) being reduced by 50% (1/2) during the vacuum treatment (i.e., from 50% (unprocessed concentration) at time=6.0 to 100% reduction at time=6.3) [Quarta, Fig.2, p.613, left column].
While Quarta does not explicitly disclose a data point of reduced concentration being about one-half of the unprocessed concentration at the specific reduced pressure range of 35 to 90 Torr, Quarta teach that higher pressures (higher positive pressures, i.e., 13.3 kPa or 100 Torr) require more vacuum treatment times than lower pressures (deeper vacuum degree or deeper negative pressures, i.e., 2.7 kPa or 20 Torr) which would require less vacuum treatment times [Quarta, ]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that process parameters may be adjusted such as vacuum treatment time duration and/or vacuum strength or degree from 0.7 to 18.7 kPA or 5 to 140 Torr as taught by Quarta, [Quarta, 2.2, last paragraph], which would achieve the claimed reduced concentration of about one-half of the unprocessed concentration using the claimed specific reduced pressure range of 35 to 90 Torr under a different amount of vacuum treatment time.
Regarding claim 9, Quarta teach removing at least two unwanted congeners (i.e., 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF), and furfural) from the untreated quantity of coffee [Quarta, Abstract, Tables 1-2, Figs.2-3].
Regarding claim 10, Quarta teach removing not only the at least two unwanted congeners (i.e., 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF), and furfural) from the untreated quantity of coffee [Quarta, Abstract, Tables 1-2, Figs.2-3], but also one different unwanted congener (water) from the treated (hydration treatment [Quarta, Table 3]) quantity of coffee, yielding a retreated (dehydrated) quantity of coffee [Quarta, Table 4].
Regarding claim 34, Quarta teach wherein removing the at least one unwanted congener includes preferentially removing the at least one unwanted congener (i.e., 5- hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF)) relative to other congeners (i.e., furfural, water) of a group of congeners from the untreated quantity of coffee [Quarta, Abstract, Tables 1-2 and 4, Figs.2-3].
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quarta as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Emich, deceased et al. [US 4015022 A], hereinafter Emich, and Horn [US 20020192342 A1].
Regarding claim 2, Quarta teach the method for rehabilitating coffee discussed above in claim 1 rejection, but is silent regarding after decreasing the pressure, cooling the pressure-controllable environment.
Emich teach a method and apparatus for reducing the content of undesirable substances (unwanted congeners) in coffee [Emich, Title], comprising: after decreasing the pressure, cooling the pressure-controllable environment (barrel) [Emich, Abstract, col.1, l.56-62, col.2, l.14-16, col.3, l.3-13].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided for the cooling of the pressure-controllable environment as taught by Emich, in the method of Quarta in order to achieve the desired cooling effect of the coffee beans [Emich, col.2, l.14-16, col.3, l.3-13] and aid in the removal of unwanted congeners or substances [Emich, col.3, l.3-13].
Regarding claim 3, modified Quarta in view of Emich teach after decreasing the pressure, cooling the pressure-controllable environment and maintaining to a temperature of about 40°C (104°F) [Emich, col.3, l.30-38], but does not explicitly teach the claimed temperature range of about 10 and about 35°C.
Horn teach a method for cooling food products inside a vessel chamber through a two-stage sequence of jacket cooling and then pulling a vacuum for vacuum cooling the product to the desired cooling temperature [Horn, Abstract]. The jacket cooling is performed first to cool food products down to temperatures of about 35°C above the temperature of the cooling liquid [Horn, 0011], (e.g., cooling food product to 40°C, when the cooling liquid is at 5°C [Horn, 0005-0006]), and then the vacuum cooling is performed until the food product reaches approximately 5°C or any other temperature desired by the user [Horn, 0029].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the claimed temperature range of about 10 and about 35°C as taught by Horn, in the method of Quarta, since Quarta in view of Emich teach cooling the pressure-controllable environment and maintaining to a temperature of about 40°C [Emich, col.3, l.30-38] while passing a cooled fluid through the cavity of the inner and outer walls of the vessel (jacket cooling) and decreasing pressure (vacuum cooling) [Emich, col.3, l.3-13, Fig.1], and does not teach a lower limit for suitable temperatures, and Horn also teach combining jacket cooling and vacuum cooling to temperatures of between 5 to 40°C or any other temperature desired by the user [Horn, 0029], and since the claimed temperature range would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization in the method of Quarta in view of Emich and Horn, due to factors such as the type of product, product viscosity [Horn, 0013], the vessel jacket area relative to the volume of product [Horn, 0014], and the design of the product mixing system (i.e., addition of agitators or scrapers), which in some cases (i.e., non-viscous products [Horn, 0013], vessel has a very high jacket area relative to the volume of product [Horn, 0014], and mixing [Horn, 0015]) will lower the transition temperature [Horn, 0015]. Doing so would provide a method that combines jacket cooling and vacuum cooling which would minimize the disadvantages of each method and improve the cooling efficiency, while retaining the desired flavor volatiles [Horn, 0010].
Claim(s) 4 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quarta as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mora et al. [US 20190274329 A1], hereinafter Mora.
Regarding claim 4, Quarta teach the method for rehabilitating coffee comprising holding the reduced pressure (vacuum) of the pressure-controllable environment at the reduced pressure for a predetermined period of time (2-120 minutes) [Quarta, 2.2, Tables 1-2]; during the predetermined period of time, removing the at least one unwanted congener from the untreated quantity of coffee[Quarta, 2.2, Tables 1-2]; as discussed above in claim 1 rejection, but is silent regarding the predetermined period of time being about between about 5 seconds and 90 seconds.
Mora teach a method for making a roast and ground coffee product suitable for cold brew coffee beverages without compromising the flavor [Mora, Abstract]. The method includes an extraction step of the coffee material (which would remove various substances from coffee including at least one unwanted congener) in a vacuum chamber at a reduced pressure of from 75 mbar to 400 mbar (56 Torr to 300 Torr) for a predetermined period of time of about between 1 and 5 minutes (60 to 300 seconds) [Mora, 0066].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the claimed predetermined period of time of about between about 5 seconds and 90 seconds as taught by Mora, in the method of Quarta to allow for transformation of the internal structure of the roast and ground coffee particles into having less closed pores and more open pores and void spaces, thereby increasing the surface area that can contact water during brewing, which would further improve the extraction yield of the dried coffee product, as well as the TDS, therefore positively impacting the flavour of the brewed coffee beverage [Mora, 0065], since Quarta already teach holding the reduced pressure (vacuum) of the pressure-controllable environment at the reduced pressure for a predetermined period of time of 120-7200 seconds [Quarta, 2.2, Tables 1-2], and since the claimed predetermined period of time range would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization in the method of Quarta in view of Mora, due to factors such as the amount of material exposed to the reduced pressure and/or the degree of pressure (lower/higher pressures) being used during the vacuum process.
Regarding claim 37, Quarta teach the method for rehabilitating coffee discussed above in claim 1 rejection, but is silent regarding wherein removing the at least one unwanted congener includes maintaining the treated quantity of coffee as caffeinated. However, while Quarta does not explicitly recites the coffee material/powder is caffeinated, and is silent regarding removing caffeine, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that the coffee product of Quarta remains caffeinated.
Moreover, Mora further teaches the method for making a roast and ground coffee product suitable for cold brew discussed above in claim 4, and further teach that the coffee product of the invention comprise soluble coffee solids [Mora, 0038], wherein the soluble coffee solids comprises all solids contained within the coffee matrix that are extractable with water including caffeine [Mora, 0029].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have removed at least one unwanted congener while maintaining the treated quantity of coffee as caffeinated as taught by Mora, in the method of Quarta, because Mora teach that soluble coffee solids (caffeine) contribute to the flavour of coffee beverage [Mora, 0029].
Claim(s) 6-8, 33 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quarta as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mosier et al. [US 20140287110 A1], hereinafter Mosier.
Regarding claim 6, Quarta teach the method for rehabilitating coffee of claim 1 discussed above, wherein the reduced concentration is about one-half of the unprocessed concentration [Quarta, Fig.2, p.613, left column] as discussed above in claim 5 rejection, but is silent regarding the reduced concentration being about one-third of the unprocessed concentration.
Mosier teach removing at least one congener [Mosier, 0001, 0017] from beverage products, by pulling a vacuum or applying a reduced pressure within a vessel containing the beverage product in order to remove said volatile and semi-volatile congeners [Mosier, Abstract, 0019]. The method is capable of reducing the concentration of at least one unwanted congener by about 65 to 70% [Mosier, 0021],which would yield a product having a reduced concentration being about one-third (30-35% of unwanted congener present) of the unprocessed concentration.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Quarta to have provided a treated coffee with about one-third of an unwanted congener as taught in Mosier as a matter of preference absent a showing of unexpected results and since the claimed reduced concentration being about one-third of the unprocessed concentration would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization in the method of Quarta in view of Mosier, due to factors such as the amount of material exposed to the reduced pressure and/or the degree of pressure (lower/higher pressures) being used during the vacuum process as taught by Quarta [Quarta, p.613, left column].
Regarding claims 7-8, Quarta teach a treated quantity of coffee being hydrated (coffee and water mixture) by water vapor saturation [Quarta, 2.1-par.1, 2.2-par.1], but is silent regarding the treated quantity of coffee is a mixture of water and a distillate fraction, and wherein the distillate fraction has a maximum unwanted congener concentration of about 0.05 and about 0.03 weight percent.
Mosier teach removing at least one congener [Mosier, 0001, 0017] from alcohol-water or like medium [Mosier, Title] distilled beverage products (spirits) [Mosier, 0020, 0103] and other beverages [Mosier, 0032], by pulling a vacuum or applying a reduced pressure within a vessel containing the water and distilled fraction beverage product in order to remove said volatile and semi-volatile congeners [Mosier, Abstract, 0017, 0019], wherein the treated quantity of beverage product is a mixture of water and a distillate fraction (the water and distillate fraction is a water-alcohol mixture solutions or water-miscible-organic-solvent and water mixtures) [Mosier, Abstract, 0022-0023, 0046], and wherein the distillate fraction has a maximum unwanted congener reduction or removal of a 100% reduction of said unwanted congener [Mosier, 0021, 0030-0031]. Therefore, Mosier teach the distillate fraction has a maximum unwanted congener concentration of 0% since 100% of the congener may be removed, which falls within a maximum of the claimed limit of about 0.05 and about 0.03 weight percent.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Quarta to have provided a treated coffee solution that is a mixture of water and a distillate fraction, wherein said distilled fraction has a maximum unwanted congener concentration of about 0.05 and about 0.03 weight percent as taught by Mosier, since both are related to reduction or removal of unwanted congeners in beverage products, and because Mosier teach that the method is suitable for other beverages [Mosier, 0032] in order to remove contaminants including congeners that cause illness in humans and modify the taste of the treated beverages [Mosier, 0017].
Regarding claims 33 and 35, Quarta teach the method for rehabilitating coffee of claim 1 discussed above, but is silent regarding wherein the at least one unwanted congener includes ethyl acetate of instant claim 33, and wherein removing the at least one unwanted congener includes preferentially removing ethyl acetate relative to ethanol from the untreated quantity of coffee of instant claim 35.
Mosier teach removing at least one congener [Mosier, 0001, 0017], wherein the at least one unwanted congener includes ethyl acetate, wherein removing the at least one unwanted congener includes preferentially removing ethyl acetate relative to ethanol [Mosier, 0021, 0006, claim 1].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Quarta to have provided a method for rehabilitating coffee, and removing the at least one unwanted congener from the untreated quantity of coffee to yield a treated quantity of coffee including a reduced concentration of the at least one unwanted congener, wherein the at least one unwanted congener includes ethyl acetate, and wherein removing the at least one unwanted congener includes preferentially removing ethyl acetate relative to ethanol from the untreated quantity of coffee as taught by Mosier. Doing so would provide a method where reduction of unwanted congeners may be performed in various different types of beverages [Mosier, 0032] in order to remove contaminants including congeners that cause illness in humans and modify the taste of the treated beverages [Mosier, 0017].
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quarta as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Day [US 20150230492 A1], hereinafter Day.
Regarding claim 36, Quarta teach the method for rehabilitating coffee of claim 1 discussed above, but is silent regarding after preferentially removing the at least one unwanted congener, exposing the treated quantity of coffee to an inert atmosphere flush.
Day teaches flushing coffee beans with inert gas, wherein the flushing can be performed at any point up to packaging which would include after congener removal by vacuum processing of the coffee beans [Day, 0018-0021].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to flush the coffee beans as taught by Day, in the method of Quarta, after removing the at least one unwanted congener by vacuum processing, with an inert gas to preserve freshness [Day, 0002 and 0018-0021].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quarta as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Emich, deceased et al. [US 4015022 A], hereinafter Emich.
Regarding claim 11, Quarta teach removing congeners (furfurals and water) from coffee material and liquid solutions, wherein the untreated (vacuum untreated) quantity of coffee includes hydrated coffee powder [Quarta, Abstract, Tables 1-2 and 4], and the liquid solutions comprise congeners [Quarta, 2.1, par.2, 2.2, par.1, Fig. 4], but does not explicitly teach wherein the untreated quantity of coffee includes a plurality of coffee beans or the solution is a coffee solution.
Emich teach a method and apparatus for reducing the content of undesirable substances (unwanted congeners) in coffee [Emich, Title], wherein the coffee being treated is in the form of a plurality of coffee beans [Emich, col.2, l.16-18, l.34-36].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the congener removal by vacuum in coffee beans as taught by Emich, in the method of Quarta, since Quarta already teach congener removal by vacuum in coffee material but simply used ground coffee beans or in powder form and also teach the method is suitable for removing congeners from liquid solutions by vacuum but simply did not use a coffee solution, and since Emich teach the method of congener removal by vacuum is suitable for coffee beans, which would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art since it would have added convenience in the method of Quarta by performing the process in coffee beans without having to grind the coffee beans and/or performed the process in all coffee bean, again after grinding the coffee bean and in final solution form for maximum removal of unwanted congeners.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quarta as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Emich, deceased et al. [US 4015022 A], hereinafter Emich, and Arora et al. [US 5035908 A], hereinafter Arora.
Regarding claim 12, Quarta teach the method of claim 1, wherein the pressure controllable environment comprise:
a pressure vessel (oven vacuum apparatus) defining a pressure controllable chamber;
a gas outlet port (implicitly disclosed since the vacuum pump is connected to the oven/pressure vessel in order to pull a vacuum (pulling gas outwardly) from within the oven chamber) in fluidic communication with the pressure controllable chamber;
a vacuum pump in fluidic communication with the gas outlet (see element 2 above) port [Quarta, 2.2];
Quarta is silent regarding the pressure controllable environment comprising:
a temperature regulator at least partially surrounding the pressure controllable chamber and in thermal communication therewith;
a liquid inlet port in fluidic communication with the pressure controllable chamber;
a liquid outlet port in fluidic communication with the pressure controllable chamber.
Emich teach a method and apparatus for reducing the content of undesirable substances (unwanted congeners) in coffee [Emich, Title], comprising:
a temperature regulator at least partially surrounding the pressure controllable chamber (barrel) and in thermal communication therewith (inner and outer wall defining space 11) around the pressure controllable chamber [Emich, col.2, l.38-40, Fig.1], which allows for regulation of temperature by providing a heating [Emich, col.2, l.67-68, col.3, l.1-2] and/or cooling (water) fluid [Emich, col.3, l.3-13] (i.e., a heating/cooling fluid/water jacket) to a desired temperature during the treatment [Emich, col.2, l.67-68, col.3, l.1-10]);
a liquid inlet port in fluidic communication with the pressure controllable chamber (since a conduit is fluidly connected and in fluid communication with the interior of tubular shaft 7 [Emich, col.2, l.45-46, Fig.1] and said tubular shaft 7 comprise a plurality of perforations 8 that fluidically connects to the inside of the pressure controllable chamber [Emich, col.2, l.32-34, l.40-43, Fig.1], from which hot humidified air (air saturated with water [Emich, col.3, l.16-18, Fig.1]) is pumped by pump 1 into the interior of the pressure controllable chamber [Emich, col.2, l.62-66, col.3, l.16-18, Fig.1]);
a liquid outlet port in fluidic communication with the pressure controllable chamber (since conduits comprising valves 9 are selectively connected (to ambient air or exterior of pressure chamber) and in fluid communication with the interior of the pressure controllable chamber [Emich, col.2, l.43-44, Fig.1], from which the hot humidified air (air and water) pumped by pump 1 [Emich, col.2, l.64-66, Fig.1] into the pressure controllable chamber [Emich, col.3, l.16-18, l., Fig.1] may flow out since the chamber is vented after the vacuum treatment with ambient air from valves 9 [Emich, col.3, l.39-40, col.2, l.43-44, Fig.1], and/or when upon termination of the hot air supply the valves 9 are closed and the vacuum pump 14 (which is connected and in fluid communication through line 12 and valve 13 with the tubular shaft 7 [Emich, col.2, l.60-61, Fig.1] and the interior of the pressure controllable chamber [Emich, col.2, l.40-43, Fig.1]) is activated to pull a vacuum [Emich, col.3, l.30-34, Fig.1], which would implicitly direct a flow of the air saturated with water that is left inside the pressure controllable chamber to the exterior of the pressure controllable chamber, making this outlet both a gas (if only air) and liquid (if water saturated air) outlet).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Quarta to have provided a temperature regulator at least partially surrounding the pressure controllable chamber and in thermal communication as taught by Emich, since Quarta already express interest in controlling temperatures (constant and desired temperatures) during the process [Quarta, 2.2, par.1]; provided a liquid inlet port in fluidic communication with the pressure controllable chamber as taught by Emich, since Quarta also already teach the vacuum treatment for removing congeners is suitable for liquid solutions and explicitly teach performing the vacuum treatment in liquid solutions successfully removing congeners [Quarta, 2.1, par.2, 2.2, par.1, Fig.4], therefore Quarta teach placing a liquid inside the pressure controllable chamber through an inlet but simply did not mention “a liquid inlet port in fluidic communication”, and further teach that removal of congeners is not affected by the type (coffee in solid or powder form and liquids) of matrix containing the congeners, and that congeners were successfully removed from both coffee powder and liquids [Quarta, page 613, right column, par.1]; and provided a liquid outlet port in fluidic communication with the pressure controllable chamber as taught by Emich, since Quarta also already teach immediately removing the vacuum treated liquid from the pressure controllable chamber after the process (after treatments, samples were immediately removed from the oven). Doing so would have provided an apparatus [Emich, col.1, l.53-55] for a method of reducing unwanted congeners, wherein said apparatus would have further provided added convenience in the method of Quarta by incorporation of said temperature regulator, liquid inlet and outlet ports to the pressure controllable chamber of Quarta in order to introduce an amount of material to be treated and remove an amount of treated material immediately upon completion of the process, without having to manually open the pressure controllable chamber and potentially affect the vacuum and/or temperatures set for the process. Furthermore, because Emich teach that the method and apparatus [Emich, col.1, l.53-55] of the invention provides the advantage of treating coffee to remove irritant substances or unwanted congeners with maximum efficiency to improve digestibility [Emich, col.1, l.40-47], and a method that can be performed several times successively [Emich, Abstract, col.1, l.63-66, col.3, l.47-48].
Modified Quarta in view of Emich are silent regarding wherein the pressure controllable environment comprising:
a collection vessel configured to receive the treated quantity of coffee.
Arora teaches a liquid outlet port in fluidic communication with a pressure controllable chamber (an evaporator under a desired pressure atmosphere as a pressure controllable chamber) and a collection vessel from which a liquid coffee fluid is extracted (a liquid outlet port in fluidic communication with a pressure controllable chamber) and further transferred to a holding tank which acts as a collection vessel for the treated coffee [Arora, column 3, lines 14-20; column 4, lines 38-54; column 6, lines 54-56].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Quarta to have provided a liquid outlet port in fluidic communication with a pressure controllable chamber and a collection vessel as taught in Arora, since Quarta already teach removing the treated coffee of the pressure controllable chamber after the vacuum treatment and storing in desiccators (which would act as a collection chamber under BRI) until further processing (analysis) [Quarta, 2.2, par.2], and further because Arora teach that it would have added the convenience of removing the treated coffee upon treatment completion directly from the vacuum chamber into a collection vessel, wherein the coffee material can be stored in a holding tank [Arora; column 3, lines 17-20] that is suitable for holding the coffee material until further processing to maintain stability of the treated coffee material [Arora; column 1, lines 15-24; column 3, lines 17-25].
Regarding claim 13, modified Quarta in view of Emich teach the temperature regulator is a water jacket [Emich, col.3, l.3-13], see Emich item 1) above teaching and motivation.
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quarta as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hwang [KR 20200022896 A].
Regarding claim 38, Quarta teach the method for rehabilitating coffee comprising placing an untreated quantity of coffee in a pressure-controllable environment (oven connected to vacuum pump) [Quarta, 2.1, 2.2], but is silent regarding tilting the pressure controllable environment, such that the untreated quantity of coffee is homogenously distributed within the pressure-controllable environment.
Hwang teaches a low temperature roasting apparatus [Hwang, Abstract] suitable for treating coffee beans [Hwang, 0019] inside of a pressure controllable environment (vacuum vessel/chamber) that may be tilted [Hwang, 0046-0047].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Quarta to have provided a method that include the tilting the pressure controllable environment as taught by Hwang, because Hwang teaches that by tilting the pressure controllable environment (vacuum vessel/chamber) would allow the untreated quantity of coffee to be homogenously distributed within the pressure controllable environment, which in turn would have provide for the even treatment of coffee [Hwang, 0020, 0046-0047].
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quarta et al. [Furfurals removal from roasted coffee powder by vacuum treatment, 2011.], hereinafter Quarta, in view of Arora et al. [US 5035908 A], hereinafter Arora, Youngner [US 5211816 A], and Salzman et al. [US 10428298 B1], hereinafter Salzman.
Regarding claim 21, Quarta teach method for removing unwanted congeners from a coffee solution including an unprocessed amount of the unwanted congeners, comprising:
establishing a vacuum in a pressure vessel for a period of time [Quarta, 2.2];
introducing a quantity of solution (model solutions comprising furfural congeners) into the pressure vessel [Quarta, 2.2]; and
during the period of time, preferentially removing at least one unwanted congener relative to other congeners of a group of congeners (i.e., HMF, furfural) from the solution to yield a treated solution [Quarta, 2.1, 2.2, Fig.4];
wherein the coffee solution in the pressure vessel remains liquid [Quarta, page 613, right column, par.1].
Quarta is silent regarding:
the solution being a coffee solution and flowing the solution inside the vessel;
Arora teaches flowing a quantity of coffee solution into a vessel (a coffee solution source operationally connected to a liquid inlet port (the evaporator has an inlet for receiving a brown coffee extract, a coffee solution source operationally connected therein) via a feed pump [Arora, col. 3, lines 8-20; col. 4, lines 38-54; col. 6, lines 31-41]; a first liquid pump in fluidic communication with the liquid inlet port and the coffee solution source (the feed pump acting as a first liquid pump) to feed the brown coffee extract to the evaporator inlet in fluidic communication with the liquid inlet port and the coffee solution source); [Arora, col. 3, lines 8-20; col. 4, lines 38-54; col. 6, lines 31-41].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Quarta to flow a quantity of coffee solution as taught by Arora into the pressure vessel of Quarta, since both are related to apparatus and methods for treating coffee and since Quarta already teach a solution source (aqueous solutions comprising congeners HMF and furfural [Quarta, 2.1, par.2]), introducing (through an inlet) the liquid solution in a vacuum chamber [Quarta, 2.2, par.1]. Doing so would provide a method that is capable of processing and treating a coffee material that is in liquid form for congeners removal, and transferring the liquid coffee extract concentrate to be treated into the vacuum chamber without having to do it manually or without having to open the pressure chamber and keep a closed system, and a method that uses an apparatus that is also suitable for providing a variable flow (adjustable flow rate) of liquid coffee concentrate to mixers in subsequent or further processing to produce a liquid with the desired concentration of solids and/or volatiles and gasified if desired [Arora, col. 4, lines 54-58; col. 3, lines 17-25], utilizing pumps for transferring the liquid coffee throughout the process to the different treatment stations (i.e., from coffee solution source to pressure chamber), while reducing the potential for thermal degradation by limiting temperature and residence time [Arora, col. 3, lines 61-63].
Quarta in view of Arora are silent regarding:
the vacuum being a partial vacuum;
Youngner teach removal of volatile impurities (congeners) from liquids by applying a partial vacuum in a vessel to remove (vent) the congeners (impurities) [Youngner, Abstract].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of modified Quarta to establish a partial vacuum as taught by Youngner, since all are related to treatment and/or removal of congeners from coffee solutions and/or liquids, since Quarta already teach applying different vacuum levels in a pressure vessel to a liquid to remove congeners [Quarta, 2.2], but simply did not mention the term partial. Doing so would provide a method that is capable of processing and treating a coffee material that is in liquid form for congeners removal, while applying a partial vacuum that is sufficiently large to ensure the vaporization of the volatile impurity, yet small enough to permit the desired treated material to remain as a condensed liquid, thus, preventing the gaseous congener from redissolving back into the liquid and can be pumped out of the system [Youngner, col. 2, lines 21-28].
Quarta in view of Arora Youngner and are silent regarding:
the vacuum applied to the liquid being about 35 Torr and about 90 Torr.
Salzman teach a method for removing or reducing congeners from liquids by applying a vacuum to the liquid in a vacuum vessel [Salzman, Abstract]. The method teach applying a vacuum to the liquid between about 50 Torr to about 500 Torr [Salzman, col.6, l.31-32].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of modified Quarta to apply the partial vacuum between about 50 Torr and about 90 Torr as taught by Salzman, since all are directed to treatment and/or removal of congeners from coffee solutions and/or liquids, since Quarta already teach applying a vacuum of 5 Torr to 140 Torr [Quarta, 2.2], which encompass the claimed ranges, but simply used this range in the solid samples and not in the liquid solution, since the same vacuum range of 5 Torr to 140 Torr used in the solid coffee powder would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization in the method of modified Quarta in view of Salzman, because Quarta teach that removal of congeners is not affected by the type of matrix containing the congeners (coffee in solid form and liquids), and that congeners were successfully removed from both coffee powder and liquids [Quarta, page 613, right column, par.1]. Doing so would provide a method that selectively removes the undesired congeners while retaining the desired aroma components in the liquid solution by controlling the time duration of treatment, temperature and vacuum pressures [Salzman, Abstract, col.6, l.47-58].
Claim(s) 22-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quarta, in view of Arora, Youngner, and Salzman as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Mosier et al. [US 20140287110 A1], hereinafter Mosier.
Regarding claim 22, Quarta teach wherein the at least one unwanted congener is removed at about 60 degrees Celsius [Quarta, 2.2], and that modulation of temperature and time may be considered in order to achieve optimal process conditions for the removal of congeners [Quarta, p.614, left column, par.3]. Further, Quarta in view of Salzman teach removing or reducing congeners from liquids by applying a vacuum to the liquid in a vacuum vessel at temperatures lower than or equal to 32°C [Salzman, Abstract], for example temperatures such as in the range of about 26-32°C [Salzman, col.6, l.31-33], for an amount of time of less than 60 minutes (i.e., 1 second to 59 minutes or 1 second to 3,540 seconds, since Salzman does not teach a lower limit amount of time), which encompass the claimed temperature and time ranges [Salzman, col.6, l.43-45].
Modified Quarta are silent regarding wherein the at least one unwanted congener includes ethyl acetate.
Mosier teach removing at least one congener [Mosier, 0001, 0017] from alcohol-water or like medium [Mosier, Title] distilled beverage products [Mosier, 0020, 0103] and other beverages [Mosier, 0032], by pulling a vacuum or applying a reduced pressure within a vessel containing the liquid solution or beverage product in order to remove said volatile and semi-volatile congeners [Mosier, Abstract, 0017, 0019], wherein the at least one unwanted congener includes ethyl acetate [Mosier, 0021].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of modified Quarta to have provided a method that uses the claimed temperature and time ranges as taught by Salzman [Salzman, col.6, l.31-33; col.6, l.43-45], wherein the at least one unwanted congener includes ethyl acetate as taught by Mosier [Mosier, 0021], since Salzman does not teach a lower limit amount of time, and since Quarta already teach that modulation of temperature and time may be considered in order to achieve optimal process conditions for the removal of congeners [Quarta, p.614, left column, par.3], and since the claimed temperatures, times and removal of selected congeners would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization in the method of modified Quarta in view of Salzman and Mosier, due to factors such as the volume of liquid, total alcoholic content of the liquid being treated, and the vacuum pump capacity [Salzman, col.6, l.43-47] and/or the desired type of congener to be removed such as low end congeners or high end congeners [Salzman, col.4, l.14-18]. Doing so would provide a method that selectively removes the undesired congeners while retaining the desired aroma components in the liquid solution by controlling the time duration of treatment, temperature and vacuum pressures [Salzman, Abstract, col.6, l.47-58], as well as a method for removing and/or converting contaminants in liquids by pulling a vacuum in a pressure vessel comprising the liquid, providing a liquid with lesser metabolic impacts for humans [Mosier, Abstract], and taking the advantage of the chemical properties (i.e., boiling point, vapor pressure) of the particular congener [Mosier, 0080].
Regarding claims 23-26, modified Quarta teach the organoleptically-improved beverage derived from a coffee composition (i.e. coffee and liquids with no unwanted congeners such as furfurals derived from treated coffee powder; [Quarta, Abstract; 2.2, par.1; and page 613, right column, Fig.4, par.1]) wherein the organoleptically-improved beverage comprises coffee; the coffee composition from which the beverage was derived possesses one or more undesirable organoleptic properties not found in the organoleptically-improved beverage, and further modified Quarta in view of Mosier teach the coffee composition including a processed amount of ethyl acetate reduced by 10% to 97% of an unprocessed amount of ethyl acetate [Mosier, 0021].
Moreover, regarding the limitation “using the method of claim 21” the examiner notes that this is a product by process limitation. It has been held that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter in claims 14-20:
While Quarta teaches the method and apparatus for rehabilitating coffee comprising:
-a pressure vessel defining a pressure controllable chamber that is configured to receive the coffee composition for rehabilitation through an inlet port of the apparatus;
-a gas outlet port in fluidic communication with the pressure controllable chamber;
-a vacuum pump in fluidic communication with the gas outlet port [Quarta, 2.2];
Quarta or the closest prior art (see prior art pertinent to applicant's disclosure of Allington et al. [US 7285300 B1] and Pierce [US 5820820 A] under Conclusion below) fails to teach a rotatable discharge chamber that is in communication with the pressure controllable chamber and the collection vessel, the rotatable discharge chamber rotating about a second axis that is different than the first axis to empty the rehabilitated coffee composition received from the pressure controllable chamber into the collection vessel. Further, the Office has not found a coffee congener removal apparatus that is both vacuum capable and has a rotary discharge portion integral therein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/7/25 in regards to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claim 37 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8, par.3 and page 9, par.1, Applicant argues the rejection of claim 37 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and states that “the base claim 21” (seems it should read as “the base claim 1”) recites “preferentially removing at least one unwanted congener from the untreated quantity of coffee to yield a treated quantity of coffee”. However, claim 21 does not explicitly recite an “untreated quantity of coffee”, instead, on claim 21, lines 1-2 the claim states “a coffee solution including an unprocessed amount of the unwanted congeners”, and lines 5-7 the claim states “preferentially removing at least one unwanted congener relative to other congeners of a group of congeners from the coffee solution to yield a treated coffee solution”. The claim requires the coffee to include an unprocessed amount of the unwanted congeners and nowhere in the claim states the coffee is untreated as recited in claim 1 lines 1-2. For example, an amount of decaffeinated coffee beans including an unprocessed amount of unwanted congeners (i.e., acrylamide) where the reduction of acrylamide is desired, may provide for the claimed “wherein removing the at least one unwanted congener includes maintaining the treated quantity of coffee” but in this case as decaffeinated, as shown by Elsby et al. [US 20180360064 A1], hereinafter Elsby, cited only as evidentiary reference for the example provided above and not relied upon for the rejection of record. Elsby teach method for removing unwanted congeners (acrylamide) from a coffee solution (made with the reduced/removed content of acrylamide coffee bean of Elsby) including an unprocessed amount of the unwanted congeners (acrylamide) [Elsby, 0013-0015, 0075], wherein removing the at least one unwanted congener (acrylamide) includes maintaining the treated quantity of coffee as decaffeinated [Elsby, 0077]. For examination purposes, claim 37 has been considered as depending from claim 1 as indicated in the pending claims. Further, it is noted that in the case of claim 37 depending from claim 1, as explained in the 35 U.S.C. 112 issue identified above, nothing in the specification discusses or gives any guidance on the process of maintaining caffeination during the method as disclosed, therefore, there is no support for the limitation of “maintaining the treated quantity of coffee as caffeinated”.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13, 21-26 and 33-38 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
r/roasting [RMCPhoto: Vacuum degassing a fresh roast., Feb,23,2019].
r/roasting teaches method for rehabilitating coffee, comprising:
-placing an untreated quantity of coffee in a pressure-controllable environment, the untreated quantity of coffee including an unprocessed concentration of at least one unwanted congener (CO2);
-decreasing a pressure of the pressure-controllable environment to a reduced pressure (vacuum);
-holding the pressure of the pressure-controllable environment at the reduced pressure for a predetermined period of time (few hours or overnight);
-during the predetermined period of time (few hours or overnight), removing the at least one unwanted congener (CO2) from the untreated quantity of coffee to yield a treated quantity of coffee including a reduced concentration of the at least one unwanted congener (CO2), the reduced concentration being smaller than the unprocessed concentration; and
-removing the treated quantity of coffee from the pressure-controllable environment [r/roasting, p.2, par.2 and 4].
Pierce [US 5820820 A].
Pierce teach a process and apparatus for reducing or eliminating unwanted congeners from solids using a reduced pressure (vacuum) [Pierce, Title, Abstract, Fig.1]. The process/apparatus comprises a pressure controllable chamber 10 having a feed hopper air lock 14 (discharge chamber) , through which product is introduced into the pressure controllable chamber 10, secured thereto, and an outer tank 12 also has a discharge hopper air lock 15, through which product is removed from the vacuum chamber, secured thereto [Pierce, col.6, l.49-57; Fig.1].
Allington et al. [US 7285300 B1], hereinafter Allington.
Allington teach an apparatus and methods for roasting coffee beans [Abstract]. The apparatus comprise a rotatable discharge chamber (rotary hopper 22) [Allington, Fig.2-4, col.8, l.50-53, col.9, l.7-17], the rotatable discharge chamber rotating about a second axis to empty the coffee received [Allington, col.8, l.50-53, col.14, l.63-65].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS EUGENIO DIOU BERDECIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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.
/L.E.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792