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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
All rejections not repeated in this Office Action have been withdrawn. Claims 1-3, 6-8 are currently pending in this Office Action.
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 and 3, 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burggraaf et al. (WO 2019048716 A1) in view of Xi (Caffeine extraction from green tea leaves assisted by high pressure processing, Journal of Food Engineering), Resch et al. (US 20180371386 A1) and Carhuff et al. (US 2005/0098575 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Burggraaf discloses a method for producing beverages using in-bulk High Pressure Processing (Page 3, fifth paragraph), comprising the steps of:
a) introducing a mixture of liquids into a watertight flexible bag, which is located inside a high-pressure vessel (transferred through a pipeline circuit and through the product plug 5a to a flexible bag 6 located inside a high pressure vessel, page 4, first paragraph),
b) filling the high-pressure vessel with a pressurizing fluid, thus, increasing the pressure inside the high pressure vessel wherein the watertight flexible bag prevents direct contact between the pressurizing fluid and the mixture (the product to be processed is isolated from the pressure transmitting fluid, page 5, second paragraph),
c) maintaining a predetermined value of pressure inside the high pressure vessel of 6000 bars (6,000 bar for most recipes, see page 4, first paragraph) during a period of time of a few seconds and several minutes (page 2, third paragraph), which is construed to overlap with the claimed range of one second and five minutes,
wherein the pressure value and period of time are based on a desired inactivation level of pathogenic microorganisms (inactivation effect of microorganisms, page 2, third paragraph),
d) evacuating the pressurizing fluid from the high-pressure vessel, thus, reducing the pressure inside the high pressure vessel (part of the transmitting fluid…leaves the vessel, page 5, last paragraph), and
e) evacuating the mixture from the flexible bag (bag 6 begins to be discharged, page 5, last paragraph).
g) obtaining a safe and particle-free beverage (the product is passed through a filter to eliminate nuggets, pulp, or other particles, page 4, last paragraph) having improved microbiological quality (“microbial load has been reduced”, page 2, third paragraph).
Burggraaf is silent to producing a beverage by extraction comprising introducing a mixture of liquid and solids, wherein the pressure and period of time is based on a desired extraction rate, and a step of f) immediately filtering the mixture evacuated from the flexible bag to obtain an extracted compounds of interest from solid or solids. Xi is relied on to teach a method of caffeine extraction from green tea leaves assisted by high pressure processing (see abstract), which found that using high hydrostatic pressure such as 500MPa, for 1 minute, resulted in an extraction having higher yields, shorter extraction time, and lower energy consumption. The shorter “extraction time” is construed to read on a desired “extraction rate” as required by the claim. Resch is further relied on to show that it is known to use HPP for infusing flavor into liquids using solid materials (see abstract) such as fruits (paragraph 15).
Since Burggraaf is directed to the high pressure processing of beverages, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to process a mixture of liquid and green tea leaves for the purpose of producing a tea beverage with higher amounts of caffeine assisted by HPP. Xi is further relied on to teach a step of immediately filtering the solids to produce a particle-free beverage with extracted compounds of interest (caffeine) from the solids (the mixture was filtered through filter paper, see section 2.2 HHP extraction method, page 106).
As to the limitation of “evacuated from the flexible bag through a hygienic filter system comprising sanitized ducts” and “preventing microbial recontamination”, Burggraaf is directed to maintaining hygiene at all points of the machine and the process (see page 3, fifth paragraph), and further teaches a step of using cleaning agents to sanitize the ducts thereby maintaining hygienic conditions (Page 4, fourth paragraph). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a filter that also maintains hygienic conditions during the filtering step f). This would necessarily include preventing microbial recontamination. Note that Claim 14 recites “a sterile filter”, (Page 7, Claim 14). In any case, Carhuff is also relied on to teach a process of dispensing food product through a food delivery mechanism that further comprises a cleansing mechanism (see abstract). Carhuff teaches directing a cleansing fluid along a fluid path in cleansing association with the food delivery mechanism to clean, rise, or sanitize the fluid path, thereby reducing microbiological loads including spore loads (paragraph 50). Therefore, there is a reasonable expectation that the system of Burggraaf prevents microbial recontamination.
Regarding Claim 3, Burggraaf further teaches where the mixture is introduced into a flexible bag from one unprocessed raw material buffer tanks (tank 22, see page 4, first paragraph).
Regarding Claim 6, Xi further teaches wherein the solids of the mixture is plant-based material (green tea leaves, see abstract).
Regarding Claim 7, Burggraaf does not specifically recite the type of liquid that is used to form the mixture; however, Xi further teaches a tea beverage wherein the liquid is alcohol and water (see section 3.2 The effect of different solvents on the extraction yields of caffeine, page 107). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use combinations of water and ethanol based on the desired beverage product, and to improve the extraction of caffeine from green tea leaves.
Regarding Claim 8, Burggraaf further teaches wherein the pressurizing fluid is water (generally water, page 4, first paragraph).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Yuan et al. (US 2004/0033296 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Burggraaf is silent to where the steps b), c) and d) are repeated one or more times before step e). Yuan is relied on to teach a step of using low temperature and high pressure processing to preserve food products against microbiological contamination, thereby improving the quality of the food and enhances food safety (see abstract). Yuan discloses that by application of more than one treatment cycle, the biocidal efficacy of HPP treatment has increased significantly (see paragraph 30), thereby reducing the number of microorganisms in the food product. Additionally, Yuan is relied on to teach the step of filling the high-pressure vessel with a pressurizing fluid, maintain the pressure, and evacuating the pressurizing fluid (paragraph 49). Therefore, since both Burggraaf and Yuan are directed to high pressure processing of food products, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to applying more than one cycles of HPP to further improves the biocidal efficacy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 11 June 2026 has been considered but is found not persuasive over the prior art.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose in-bulk HPP extraction with the specific combination elements, i.e. the precise pressure and time window and immediate closed-loop hygienic filtration required by Claim 1. However, the argument is not persuasive because, as indicated in the rejection, Burggraaf discloses a pressure value of 6,000 bars (page 4, first paragraph), and a time period of a few seconds to several minutes (page 2, third paragraph). "[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2131.03. Therefore, since Burggraaf specifically discloses value that are within the claimed range (i.e. 6000 bars and a few seconds), Burggraaf is construed to teach the claimed combination element. As to the elements of “immediate closed-loop hygienic filtration”, the claim does not require “closed-loop”. Rather, the claim simply recites “immediately filtering the mixture… through a hygienic filter system…” In this case, Xi discloses a step of filtering the mixture through filter paper subsequent to the high pressure processing of the product (see 2.2 HPP extraction method, page 106). Therefore, absent additional steps of recitation of a waiting period, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably construe the filtering step to occur immediately. Furthermore, even if Xi is not directed to a “closed-loop”, which is not required by the claim, the teachings of Xi would have been applied to Burggraaf such that the filtering would occur on an industrial application comprising sanitized ducts and filter media, as taught by the Carhuff reference. For these reasons, the prior art is seen to teach all the limitations of the claim.
In response to Applicant’s argument that introducing a solid-liquid mixture into the system of Burggraaf would comprise the sealing compacity of the metal to metal valve seat, thus teaching away from processing solid-liquid mixtures, the argument is not persuasive because it is maintained that filtering the product is optional (page 4, fourth paragraph of Burggraaf) and that there is no evidence to suggest that the powder passed through a 40 mesh screen (381 to 425 microns) rises to the level of nuggets, pulp, or particles that could damage the sealing capacity. For these reasons, the combination of Burggraaf and Xi is maintained.
As to Applicant’s argument that the claimed pressure window and time produces unexpected results, Applicant notes that traditional extraction requires subsequent thermal pasteurization to stabilize the beverage. However, the argument is not persuasive because the claim does not exclude additional thermal pasteurization. Furthermore, Burggraaf does not require subsequent thermal pasteurization (see page 5, last paragraph to page 6, first paragraph). Furthermore, Burggraaf is also directed to reducing microbial load to undetectable levels while using the claimed pressure and period of time (the product has been sanitized, meaning that its microbial load has been reduced, see page 2, third paragraph). For these reasons, the prior art is maintained because similar parameters have been used to achieve reduced microbial load without an additional thermal pasteurization step.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Xi is directed to a laboratory-scale static academic study, thus providing no motivation to scale up, the argument is not persuasive because there is no evidence to suggest that one of ordinary skill in the art would not look into laboratory-scale extraction protocol for guidance to improve an industrial scale processing. In fact, Xi indicates that HPP “has successfully been applied to achieve pasteurization and sterilization in food and pharmaceutical industries” (page 105, right column, second paragraph). Also, Xi suggest that HPP is “looked upon with interest” due to the difficulties of applying ultrasound extraction on an industrial scale (page 109, left column). For these reasons, it is maintained that there is a reasonable expectation of success to combine the reference.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 THANH H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0346. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm.
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.
/T.H.N/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
