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 .
This office action is in response to the application filed on September 8, 2022. The earliest effective filing date of the application is May 24, 2022.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d), filed on May 24, 2022.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 17, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Application
The amendment filed November 17, 2025 with the Request for Continued Examination has been entered. The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1 – 9
Withdrawn claims: None
Newly cancelled claims: 10 – 17
Amended claims: 1 and 4 – 7
Claims currently under examination: 1 – 9
The status of the objections and rejections regarding the disclosure upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Withdrawn Rejections: The previous rejections of claims 10 – 17 are withdrawn due to the cancellation of claims 10 – 17. The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1 – 9 over Kenji are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s arguments.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections: A new rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1, 8, and 9 over Orchids Asia is presented below. A new rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1 – 7 over Dunphy is presented below.
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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orchids Asia (Vanilla Beans Curing Systems. Orchids Asia Collectibles. (2014). Retrieved from: https://www.orchidsasia.com/vanillacuring.htm) in view of The Vanillery of Kaua’i (Building a Vanilla Sweat Box. The Vanillery of Kaua’i. (2021). Retrieved from: https://vanillery.com/building-a-vanilla-sweat-box/).
Regarding claim 1, Orchids Asia teaches a traditional method of curing vanilla beans comprising the steps of:
i) killing the vanilla beans (i.e., subjecting the vanilla pod to a killing treatment) in a calorifico (a brick or cement room) with an internal heater at 60 °C – 70 °C for 36 – 48 hours (p. 5, paragraph 1);
ii) sweating the vanilla beans (i.e., subjecting the killed vanilla pod to a heating treatment) in a sweating box for 24 hours (p. 5, paragraph 2); and
iii) sunning the vanilla beans until dry (p. 5, paragraph 3; p. 4, paragraphs 1 – 3).
With respect to whether the killing step of Orchids Asia is capable of destroying cellular tissues of the vanilla pod and releasing enzymes from the cellular tissues, the instant specification states the killing treatment may be conducted by subjecting the sealed container containing the disinfected vanilla pod to a heating treatment in hot water at a temperature ranging from 70°C to 90°C for a time period ranging from 20 seconds to 60 seconds (p. 5, lines 25 – 27; p. 6, lines 1 – 5). The instant specification also states if the heating (i.e., killing) treatment is conducted at a temperature above 90 °C, the released enzymes will be denatures (p. 6, lines 10 – 14). Therefore, because the killing step of Orchids Asia is a heating step at 60 °C – 70 °C for at least 20 – 60 seconds, the killing step of Orchids Asia is considered capable of destroying cellular tissues of the vanilla pod and releasing enzymes from the cellular tissues.
Orchids Asia does not teach the sweating box is an oven.
The Vanillery of Kaua’i teaches a vanilla sweat box comprising an internal temperature control (i.e., the sweat box is an oven – p. 2, paragraph 3). The Vanillery of Kaua’i teaches the sweat box maintains an optimum temperature for vanilla beans to develop vanillin (p. 1, paragraph 1; p. 1, paragraph 1).
Orchids Asia and The Vanillery of Kaua’i are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, curing vanilla beans. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the sweat box (i.e., oven) of The Vanillery of Kaua’i as the sweating box in the method of Orchids Asia because the sweat box (i.e., oven) of The Vanillery of Kaua’i provides an optimum temperature for vanilla beans to develop vanillin.
With respect to whether the sweat box is airtight, Orchids Asia teaches the sweating box of the method of Orchids Asia is an airtight mahogany box (p. 3, paragraph 2). While The Vanillery of Kaua’i does not teach the sweat box of The Vanillery of Kaua’i is airtight, The Vanillery of Kaua’i teaches for the sweat box, a dehydrator won’t work because the fan will dry the beans too quickly, even though they are in plastic bags (p. 26, Roland’s comment). The Vanillery of Kaua’i teaches the sweat box must be moist and warm, so that the beans retain moisture during the sweating process (p. 26, Roland’s comment). Therefore, while The Vanillery of Kaua’i does not explicitly encourage making the sweat box airtight, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood before the effective filing date of the invention that by making the sweatbox airtight, the maximum moisture retention inside of the sweatbox would be achieved. This rationale, in addition to the fact that Orchids Asia teaches that an airtight container is suitable to achieve sweating, shows that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to ensure a sweat box is airtight. Therefore it would have been obvious to have made the sweat box of The Vanillery of Kaua’i airtight.
Orchids Asia does not teach the killing and sweating steps are conducted in the same container.
The Vanillery Kaua’i teaches the sweat box is capable of reaching temperatures as high as 200 °F (93 °C).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the sweat box (i.e., airtight oven) of The Vanillery of Kaua’i as the calorifico in the method of Orchids Asia because the sweat box (i.e., airtight oven) of The Vanillery of Kaua’i is an environment with an internal heater that can reach temperatures of 60 °C – 70 °C, therefore the sweat box (i.e., airtight oven) is suitable for use as a calorifico.
Orchids Asia does not teach the sweating step is conducted at 40 °C to 60 °C.
The Vanillery of Kaua’i teaches sweating at 115 °F (46 °C – p. 14, paragraph 5).
With respect to whether the modified sweating step of Orchids Asia allows the vanilla pod enzymes to react with components in the killed vanilla pod to synthesize aroma molecules, given the modified sweating step is within the precisely claimed temperature range, it is interpreted that the modified sweating step of Orchid Asia inherently allows the vanilla pod enzymes to react with components in the killed vanilla pod to synthesize aroma molecules.
In summary, by applying the obvious modifications as described above to the method of Orchids Asia, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the following method before the effective filing date of the instant invention:
i) placing the vanilla beans in the sweat box (i.e., airtight oven) of The Vanillery of Kaua’i and closing it (i.e., sealing it to keep away from air);
ii) killing the vanilla beans (i.e., subjecting the vanilla pod in the sealed container to a killing treatment, so as to destroy cellular tissues of the vanilla pod and release enzymes from the cellular tissues) in the sweat box (i.e., airtight oven) of The Vanillery of Kaua’i (i.e., a calorifico with an internal heater) at 60 °C – 70 °C for 36 – 48 hours (p. 5, paragraph 1);
iii) sweating the vanilla beans (i.e., subjecting the killed vanilla pod in the sealed container to a heating treatment, so that the enzymes react with components in the killed vanilla pod to synthesize aroma molecules) in the sweat box (i.e., airtight oven) of The Vanillery of Kaua’i at 46 °C for 24 hours (p. 5, paragraph 2); and
iv) sunning the vanilla beans until dry (p. 5, paragraph 3; p. 4, paragraphs 1 – 3).
Regarding claim 8, by utilizing the sweat box of The Vanillery of Kaua’i as both the calorifico and the sweating box in the method of Orchids Asia, the killing and heating steps are performed in the sweat box of The Vanillery of Kaua’i (i.e., the airtight oven) in sequence.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orchids Asia (Vanilla Beans Curing Systems. Orchids Asia Collectibles. (2014). Retrieved from: https://www.orchidsasia.com/vanillacuring.htm) in view of The Vanillery of Kaua’i (Building a Vanilla Sweat Box. The Vanillery of Kaua’i. (2021). Retrieved from: https://vanillery.com/building-a-vanilla-sweat-box/), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Márquez et al. (The effect of thermal treatment on β-glucosidase inactivation in vanilla bean (Vanilla planifolia Andrews). International Journal of Food Science and Technology. Vol 43. Pp. 1993 – 1999. (2008)).
Regarding claim 9, the range of killing step temperatures, 60 °C – 70 °C, as disclosed by Orchids Asia, overlaps with the claimed range of 70 °C to 80 °C. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Orchids Asia does not teach performing the killing step for 5 minutes to 20 minutes.
Márquez investigates the effect of thermal treatment on enzyme activity in vanilla beans. Márquez teaches the most important enzymatic reaction occurring during the curing process is hydrolysis of glucovanillin by β-glucosidase to produce glucose and vanillin (p. 1993, paragraph 3). Marquez teaches the killing time at a given temperature and pH can reliably predict the β-glucosidase deactivation (p. 1996 – 1997, Figures 3 – 5). Given an increase in killing time results in a predictable increase in β-glucosidase deactivation, the killing time of vanilla beans is a result-effective variable.
Orchids Asia and Márquez are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, curing vanilla beans. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have killed the vanilla beans in the method of Orchids Asia for 5 minutes to 20 minutes because one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the killing step time during routine optimization to find the vanilla beans with the desired flavor profile. MPEP §2144.05(II) states where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The claimed killing time, 5 minutes to 20 minutes, would thus be obvious.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunphy et al. (US 20110081448 A1 – IDS Filed on January 23, 2025) in view of OutofAir (Is Vacuum Sealing Worth It? A Complete Guide. Out of Air. (April 21, 2022). Retrieved from: https://outofair.com/blog/is-vacuum-sealing-worth-it-a-complete-guide).
Regarding claim 1, Dunphy teaches a method of making cured vanilla bean pieces comprising the steps of:
i) blanching vanilla beans (i.e., subjecting the vanilla pod in the sealed container to a killing treatment);
ii) comminuting the blanched vanilla beans of step i);
iii) incubating the comminuted pieces of step ii) at a temperature of 30 to 55 °C (i.e., subjecting the killed vanilla pod to a heating treatment – Abstract; [0034]); and
iv) drying the incubated pieces of step iii) (Abstract).
The range of incubation (i.e., heating) temperature, 30 to 55 °C, as disclosed by Dunphy, overlaps with the claimed range of 40 °C to 60 °C. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
With respect to whether the blanching of Dunphy is a killing treatment capable of destroying cellular tissues of the vanilla pod and release enzymes from the cellular tissues, Dunphy teaches the term "blanching" it is meant a process of heat treatment which may be achieved by various means, including heating in air, treatment with steam or immersion in water ([0021]). Dunphy teaches the blanching step is conducted at a sufficient temperature and for a sufficient length of time to kill fungal organisms and other pathogens detrimental to the subsequent steps (i.e., destroy cells), but not for sufficient time to negatively affect the enzyme systems that are essential to the incubation (fermentation) of the beans ([0024]). Dunphy teaches the blanching is conducted at between 40 and 100 °C ([0025]). The instant specification states the killing treatment may be conducted by subjecting the sealed container containing the disinfected vanilla pod to a heating treatment in hot water at a temperature ranging from 70°C to 90°C for a time period ranging from 20 seconds to 60 seconds (i.e., blanching – p. 5, lines 25 – 27; p. 6, lines 1 – 5); therefore the blanching step of Dunphy is considered a killing treatment, so as to destroy cellular tissues of the vanilla pod and release enzymes from the cellular tissues.
With respect to whether the incubation of Dunphy allows the vanilla pod enzymes to react with components in the killed vanilla pod to synthesize aroma molecules, Dunphy teaches during comminuting, enzymes are released that catalyse the conversion of compounds present in the beans to the compounds responsible for the characteristic qualities of vanilla in terms of flavour and aroma ([0028]). Dunphy teaches "incubation” is the process by which the compounds characteristic of vanilla are allowed to develop ([0032]). Therefore, the incubation step of Dunphy allows the enzymes to react with components in the killed vanilla pod to synthesize aroma molecules.
While Dunphy does not teach comminuting the vanilla beans before blanching them, MPEP § 2144.04.IV.C states selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. MPEP § 2144.04.IV.C also states the selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious. Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have comminuted the vanilla beans prior to blanching.
With respect to the precisely claimed step of placing the vanilla pod in a container, followed by sealing to keep away from air prior to killing and heating the vanilla pods, Dunphy teaches the bean pieces may be sealed in containers substantially impermeable to water vapour during incubation ([0033]). While Dunphy does not teach sealing the comminuted vanilla beans in containers substantially impermeable to water vapour for both blanching and incubation, MPEP § 2144.04.IV.C states selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. MPEP § 2144.04.IV.C also states the selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious. Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have sealed the comminuted vanilla beans in containers substantially impermeable to water vapour for blanching and incubation.
While Dunphy does not teach the container substantially impermeable to water vapour is a vacuum bag, Dunphy teaches the incubation process is a process step which is conducted under an atmosphere having a reduced content of oxygen compared with atmospheric air ([0045] – [0046]).
OutofAir teaches unlike other ways of preserving food, a vacuum sealer sucks the air out (of the vacuum bag), deprives bacteria of oxygen, and seals the food in an airtight atmosphere (i.e., provides an anaerobic environment substantially impermeable to water vapor to foods. – p. 4, paragraph 4).
Dunphy and OutofAir are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, containers capable of providing an anaerobic environment substantially impermeable to water vapor. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a vacuum bag as the container in the method of Dunphy, as taught by OutofAir because OutofAir teaches vacuum bags are capable of providing an anaerobic environment substantially impermeable to water vapor to foods.
In summary, by applying the obvious modifications as described above to the method of Dunphy, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the following method before the effective filing date of the instant invention:
i) comminuting vanilla beans, then placing them in a vacuum bag (i.e., placing the vanilla pod in a container, followed by sealing to keep away from air);
ii) blanching the comminuted vanilla beans (i.e., subjecting the vanilla pod in the sealed container to a killing treatment, so as to destroy cellular tissues of the vanilla pod and release enzymes from the cellular tissues);
iii) incubating the blanched, comminuted pieces of step ii) at a temperature of 40 to 55 °C (i.e., subjecting the killed vanilla pod in the sealed container to a heating treatment at a temperature ranging from 40°C to 60°C, so that the enzymes react with components in the killed vanilla pod to synthesize aroma molecules – Abstract; [0034]); and
iv) drying the incubated pieces of step iii).
Regarding claim 2, Dunphy teaches the vanilla beans are harvested and then subjected to the process of the invention; some pre-treatment steps, such as washing (i.e., a disinfection treatment so as to eliminate bacteria and mold on a surface of the vanilla pod) may be included ([0022]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunphy et al. (US 20110081448 A1 – IDS Filed on January 23, 2025) in view of OutofAir (Is Vacuum Sealing Worth It? A Complete Guide. Out of Air. (April 21, 2022). Retrieved from: https://outofair.com/blog/is-vacuum-sealing-worth-it-a-complete-guide), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kenji et al. (WO 2023033092 A1 - IDS Filed January 23, 2025 - Clarivate Translation).
Dunphy does not teach the washing is conducted using a disinfection method selected from the group consisting of ultraviolet (UV) light disinfection, alcohol disinfection, hypochlorous acid disinfection, and combinations thereof.
Kenji teaches a method of curing vanilla beans. Kenji teaches sterilization (i.e., a disinfection treatment) can be achieved via exposure to chemicals such as ethanol (i.e., alcohol disinfection), or via exposure to electromagnetic waves such as ultraviolet rays (i.e., ultraviolet (UV) light disinfection – p. 3, paragraph 8).
Dunphy and Kenji are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, curing vanilla beans. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected exposure to chemicals such as ethanol (i.e., alcohol disinfection), or via exposure to electromagnetic waves such as ultraviolet rays (i.e., ultraviolet (UV) light disinfection, as taught by Kenji as washing steps in the method of Dunphy because the sterilization (i.e., disinfection treatments) taught by Kenji were known by the public at the time of filing to be suitable for use on vanilla beans prior to curing, which means it was within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the claimed disinfection methods, because it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunphy et al. (US 20110081448 A1 – IDS Filed on January 23, 2025) in view of OutofAir (Is Vacuum Sealing Worth It? A Complete Guide. Out of Air. (April 21, 2022). Retrieved from: https://outofair.com/blog/is-vacuum-sealing-worth-it-a-complete-guide), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ZeroPak (Vacuum Sealer Comparison Chart. ZeroPak. (January 10, 2020) Retrieved from Wayback Machine Archive - https://web.archive.org/web/20210209224443/https://zeropak.co.nz/faqs/vacuum-sealer-comparison-charts/).
Regarding claim 4, the modified method of Dunphy does not teach once the vanilla beans are inside the vacuum bag, air is evacuated to generate a negative pressure ranging from 70 kPa to 80 kPa inside the vacuum bag, so as to achieve sealing.
ZeroPak teaches vacuum sealers for food operate within a negative pressure range of 60 – 92 kPa (p. 2, Vacuum Pressure).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a vacuum sealer capable of pulling a vacuum within the precisely claimed negative pressures because the range of vacuum sealing negative pressures, 60 – 92 kPa, as disclosed by ZeroPak, overlaps with the claimed range of 70 kPa to 80 kPa. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 5, Dunphy teaches the blanching (i.e., killing) step is conducted at a sufficient temperature and for a sufficient length of time to kill fungal organisms and other pathogens (i.e., destroy cells) detrimental to the subsequent steps, but not for sufficient time to negatively affect the enzyme systems that are essential to the incubation (fermentation) of the beans ([0024]). Dunphy teaches blanching is conducted at between 40 and 100 °C ([0025]). Dunphy teaches in an embodiment, the blanching step is conducted at between 60 and 65 °C for between two and three minutes ([0026]).
The range of blanching (i.e., killing) temperatures, 40 – 100 °C, as disclosed by Dunphy, overlaps with the claimed range of 70 – 90 °C. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
While Dunphy does not teach the blanching (i.e., killing) step is performed 20 to 60 seconds, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the amount of blanching time as the temperature is adjusted during routine optimization to find the blanching time and temperature that results in the desired cell destruction while avoiding enzyme deactivation. MPEP §2144.05(II) states where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The claimed blanching (i.e., killing) time, 20 to 60 seconds, would thus be obvious.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunphy et al. (US 20110081448 A1 – IDS Filed on January 23, 2025) in view of OutofAir (Is Vacuum Sealing Worth It? A Complete Guide. Out of Air. (April 21, 2022). Retrieved from: https://outofair.com/blog/is-vacuum-sealing-worth-it-a-complete-guide) and ZeroPak (Vacuum Sealer Comparison Chart. ZeroPak. (January 10, 2020) Retrieved from Wayback Machine Archive - https://web.archive.org/web/20210209224443/https://zeropak.co.nz/faqs/vacuum-sealer-comparison-charts/), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Bala et al. (Optimizing the Traditional Curing of Vanilla Beans. Perfumer & Flavorist. Vol 40. (2015)) and Kenji et al. (WO 2023033092 A1 - IDS Filed January 23, 2025 - Clarivate Translation).
Dunphy does not teach the blanching (i.e., killing) step is conducted by subjecting the sealed vacuum bag containing the vanilla pod to a freezing treatment.
Bala investigates the optimization of curing vanilla beans. Bala teaches while blanching is a traditional method to achieve killing, freezing is another common alternative method (p. 22, col. 1, paragraphs 1 – 2; p. 23, col. 1, paragraph 7). Bala teaches freezing/thaw pre-treatment of ripe beans was demonstrated as a route to increasing the vanillin content in vanilla beans compared to that which could be obtained by traditional hot water pre-treatment (p. 23, col. 2, paragraph 2).
Dunphy and Bala are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, curing vanilla beans. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the blanching step in the method of Dunphy with a freezing/thawing step, as taught by Bala because freezing/thaw pre-treatment of ripe beans was demonstrated as a route to increasing the vanillin content in vanilla beans compared to that which could be obtained by traditional hot water pre-treatment (i.e., blanching).
Dunphy does not teach the freezing (i.e., killing) treatment is conducted at a temperature ranging from -4°C to -80°C.
Kenji teaches a method of curing vanilla beans. Kenji teaches various methods of vanilla bean cell destruction (i.e., killing), including immersing beans in hot water (i.e., blanching), and freezing (p. 4, paragraph 5). Kenji teaches freezing vanilla beans for cell destruction (i.e., killing) can be achieved at 0 °C to -80 °C (p. 4, paragraph 5).
Dunphy and Kenji are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, curing vanilla beans. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have conducted freezing (i.e., killing) at -4 to -80 °C because the range of freezing (i.e., killing) temperatures, 0 °C to -80 °C, as disclosed by Kenji, overlaps with the claimed range of -4 to -80 °C. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Dunphy does not teach the freezing (i.e., killing) treatment is conducted for a time period ranging from 1 hour to 3 hours.
Kenji teaches the freezing method of cell destruction (i.e., killing) for vanilla beans is conducted for 2 hours or more (p. 4, paragraph 5).
The range of freezing (i.e., killing) time period, 2 hours or more, as disclosed by Kenji, overlaps with the claimed range of 1 hour to 3 hours. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunphy et al. (US 20110081448 A1 – IDS Filed on January 23, 2025) in view of OutofAir (Is Vacuum Sealing Worth It? A Complete Guide. Out of Air. (April 21, 2022). Retrieved from: https://outofair.com/blog/is-vacuum-sealing-worth-it-a-complete-guide) and ZeroPak (Vacuum Sealer Comparison Chart. ZeroPak. (January 10, 2020) Retrieved from Wayback Machine Archive - https://web.archive.org/web/20210209224443/https://zeropak.co.nz/faqs/vacuum-sealer-comparison-charts/), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Jones et al. (Criteria for Testing Vanilla in Relation to Killing and Curing Methods. Journal of Agricultural Research. Vol. 78. Pp. 425 – 434. (1950)).
Dunphy does not teach the incubation (i.e., heating) step is conducted in an oven.
Jones investigates common techniques used for the curing of vanilla beans. Jones teaches sweating (i.e., incubation) is achieved by wrapping the beans in blankets and allowing them to warm under the sun, or by warming the vanilla beans in an oven (p. 425, paragraph 1, bullet 2; p. 433, paragraph 4; bullet 2).
Dunphy and Jones are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, curing vanilla beans. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected an oven as the vessel within which the vanilla beans of Dunphy are incubated (i.e., sweated), as taught by Jones because Jones provides that it was known by the public for an oven to be used as the heating element for sweating (i.e., incubating) vanilla beans at the time of filing, which means it was within the general skill of a worker in the art to select an oven as the incubator in the method of Dunphy, because it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the method of Kenji cannot be carried out under sealed conditions such as in a vacuum bag or an airtight oven (p. 5, paragraph 6).
Applicant’s arguments has been carefully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1 – 9 over Kenji has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Orchids Asia and Dunphy.
Applicant argues Vanilla Bean Kings does not teach or suggest sealing uncured vanilla beans in a vacuum bag or airtight oven (p. 6, paragraph 4).
Applicant’s arguments has been carefully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1 – 9 over Kenji has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Orchids Asia and Dunphy.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARK JULIA MORENO whose telephone number is (571)272-2337. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 - 4:30 M - F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emily Le can be reached at (571) 272-0903. 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.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793