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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 15 Dec 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
As a result of the amendments to the claim, the 112(b) rejections over Claims 1-8 have been withdrawn.
All rejections not repeated in this Office Action have been withdrawn. Claims 1-8 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 3-8 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 during a predetermined period of time (page 4, first paragraph), wherein the pressure value and period of time are based on a desired yield (without altering the characteristics of the process product, page 2, second paragraph) and an 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, a step of f) 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. 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 higher amounts of caffeine assisted by HPP. Xi is further relied on to teach a step of 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 4, Burggraaf further teaches where the predetermined pressure is 600 MPa (6,000 bar, see page 4, first paragraph).
Regarding Claim 5, Burggraaf further teaches where the predetermined period of time under pressure is between a few seconds and several minutes (page 2, third paragraph), which is construed to be within the claimed range of 1 seconds and 59 minutes.
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 be 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 12/15/2025 has been considered but is found not persuasive over the prior art.
As to section D1, Applicant maintains that Burggraaf teaches away from solid-liquid extraction inside the HPP Vessel because the term “other particles” recited in Burggraaf would have included pulverized and sieved tea powder and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not introduce particles into the processing bag. However, the argument is not persuasive because Applicant’s argument appears to suggest that Burggraaf does not allow any solid materials whatsoever; however, this is not explicitly indicated in the reference because Burggraaf state that the product is optionally filter “in case it is necessary” to eliminate the solid materials. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would determine whether filtering is necessary or not, and it is not explicitly indicated that fine powder passed through a 40 mesh sieve (approximately 0.5mm apertures) would have compromised the sealing capacity of the valve seat in the Burggraaf reference. For these reason, it is maintained that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the references.
As to section D2, Applicant argues that there is a lack of motivation to combine because Burggraaf is directed to an industrial scale processing of pasteurizing beverages, whereas Xi is directed to a laboratory-scale academic study focused on optimizing chemical extraction of a single compound from tea leaves; therefore, a person of ordinary skill would not seek guidance from a small-scale laboratory extraction to improve the processing of Burggraaf. 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.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Burggraaf and Xi are non-analogous art, the argument is not persuasive because both Burggraaf and Xi are directed to High Pressure Processing of beverages and Xi also recognizes HPP being successfully applied to achieve pasteurization within the food industries (page 105, right column, second paragraph). Therefore, it is maintained that the Xi reference is analogous and provides guidance on improving the yield of certain components in beverages through a processing already being used by Burggraaf.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (Section D2, D3, and D4, with respect to Xi, Resch and Yuan), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). That is, Burggraaf is relied on to teach a process of hygienically processing a beverage, and Resch and Xi are relied on to further include solid particles for the purpose of improving the yield of certain compounds during similar High Pressure Processing. The fact that Xi, Resch and Yuan are not directed to post-HPP hygiene filtering does not teach away from combining the references as one of ordinary skill in the art would have maintained the hygienic processing under the guidance of Burggraaf. Additionally, Applicant’s argument is not clear as to why Yuan not teaching any hygienic filtration step or sanitary filter structure equates to the teaching of repeating HPP cycles to increase microbial inactivation. It is maintained that Yuan provides a clear suggestion to repeat HPP cycles to increase the biocidal efficacy of HPP treatments (paragraph 30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to repeat the cycles already taught by the Burggraaf reference for the same purpose.
In response to Applicant’s argument that none of the reference discloses “immediate filtering of the HPP-treated mixture”, the argument is not persuasive because the Claims do not require “immediate filtering of the HPP-treated mixture”. Furthermore, Xi is relied on to teach the step of filtering an HPP-treated mixture (page 106, section 2.2).
Conclusion
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