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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 9-22, in the reply filed on 09/15/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that Carbone does not teach the special technical feature of the claims as amended. The examiner recognizes that both inventions now require a carbonated filling liquid in which carbon dioxide is dissolved under pressure of at least 3 bar. This is found to not be a special technical feature in view of the prior art as evidenced by the rejection below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 23-28, 30-32, 34-35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 42. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “the minimally processed fruit or vegetable”. The only mention of a minimally processed fruit or vegetable in claim 1 is in the preamble referring to the finished product of the method. It appears the minimally processed fruit or vegetable of claim 6 is in reference to an intermediate product and that is how the examiner is interpreting for examination purposes. If this is the case, alternate terminology should be used to improve clarity.
Claim 17 claims carbonation of a juice. As step a of claim 1 provides a carbonated liquid it is unclear if the carbonated juice of claim 17 is a different carbonated liquid from that of claim 1 or if the carbonated liquid of step a of claim 1 is in fact produced in a later step (j). For examination purposes, the carbonated juice of claim 17 is interpreted to be the same as the carbonated liquid of step a of claim 1.
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, 10-11, 14-15, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiers (US 2013/0330445 A1), found in applicant’s IDS filed 09/16/2025, in view of Carbone (US 1,575,148) cited in Restriction filed 07/15/2025, further in view of Eaton (“A guide to carbonation”) and Hayakawa (US 2019/0375622 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Spiers teaches a method for long term preservation of ready to eat fruit or vegetable while retaining the nutrition properties and taste of the fresh fruit or vegetable (preservation for significant periods of time, maintain natural characteristics Par. 0043; fruit is ready to eat Par. 0048)
the method comprising the steps of:
a. providing at least: a fruit or vegetable, a sterilized seal-able package and a carbonated liquid (a releasably sealed container containing harvested produce immersed in an aqueous storage solution Par. 0008; storage solution is a carbonated storage solution Par. 0012)
g. processing the fruit or vegetable by at least washing and disinfecting the exterior of the fruit or vegetable (washed Par. 0080; preferably sterilized prior to submersion Par. 0047)
filling the seal-able package with the carbonated liquid (storage solution to cover fruit completely, solution charged with carbon dioxide prior to immersing the fruit in the storage solution Par. 0048 Fig 1)
k. placing the processed fruit or vegetable into the sterilized seal-able package (whole fruit placed in container Par. 0048)
m. sealing the seal-able package (container is then sealed Par. 0048)
n. storing the sealed package at a storage temperature of between 1 C to 40°C (stored at 2-5°C Par. 0043)
Regarding the fruit or vegetable is minimally processed, Spiers does not specifically state the product is minimally processed, but the processing steps are similar to that of the present invention, therefore it appears that the invention of Spiers is “minimally processed” by applicant’s standards.
Spiers does not teach l. filling the remaining volume of the package with the liquid, filling is performed after addition of fruit or vegetable, the liquid having carbon dioxide dissolved under pressure of at least 3 bar, or wherein steps g, k, 1 and m are performed under a disinfected processing environment.
Carbone, in the same field of endeavor, teaches l. filling the remaining volume of the seal-able package with the carbonated liquid (fruit is added to container, container then filled with liquid so that all the air present in the container has been expelled Pg. 2 lines 45-59).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the invention of Spiers with the liquid filling of Carbone. One would have been motivated to make this modification to ensure the fruit will remain in the condition it was before packing without danger of decay or fermentation (Carbone Pg. 1 lines 14-20, Pg. 2 lines 41-44).
Carbone does not teach the liquid having carbon dioxide dissolved under pressure of at least 3 bar, or wherein steps g, k, l and m are performed under a disinfected processing environment.
Eaton, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the carbonated liquid having carbon dioxide dissolved under pressure of at least 3 bar (fill with beverage add carbon dioxide at 45psi Pg. 2 section “Under Pressure”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the invention of modified Spiers with the carbonation pressure of Eaton. One would have been motivated to make this modification to select a known process based on its suitability for its intended use, supporting a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Eaton does not teach steps g, k, l and m are performed under a disinfected processing environment.
Hayakawa, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a disinfected processing environment (sterile chamber 13 Par. 0033 Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to further modify the invention of modified Spiers with the disinfected environment of Hayakawa. One would have been motivated to make this modification to avoid the negative effects of heat sterilization, such as deterioration of the beverage or deformation of the container occurs (Hayakawa Par. 0004).
Regarding claim 10, Spiers further teaches after step a, the step of: f. processing the fruit or vegetable by physically altering the fruit or vegetable from its whole state in order to obtain a fully edible product (diced harvested produce Par. 0046)
Regarding claim 11, Spiers further teaches the processing of the fruit or vegetable is made by one or more process selected from the group consisting of: opening, pealing, trimming, cutting, slicing, chopping, dicing, ricing, shredding, deseeding, separating, extracting and tearing (diced harvested produce Par. 0046).
Regarding claim 14, Spiers further teaches the carbonated liquid has substantially the same pH value and same dissolved matter content as the minimally processed fruit or vegetable, in order to obtain osmotic pressure balance with the minimally processed fruit or vegetable, thus retaining the natural shape and texture of the fresh fruit or vegetable (tonicity of storage solution is substantially isotonic with respect to the tonicity of the fruit to be stored prior to immersion in the solution, neutral water potential, zero net passage of water between the fruit and the solution Par 0044).
Regarding claim 15, modified Spiers teaches the method as claimed in claim 14.
Spiers, Carbone and Eaton do not teach the carbonated liquid is a fresh squeezed fruit or vegetable Juice.
Hayakawa teaches the carbonated liquid is a fresh squeezed fruit or vegetable Juice (raw material liquid containing components derived from plants such as fruit juice Par. 0038). As the juice is raw it can be assumed it is relatively fresh to not be spoiled without sterilization treatment.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to further modify the invention of modified Spiers with the juice of Hayakawa. One would have been motivated to make this modification to produce a fruit juice which has reliably prevented propagation of microorganisms (Par. 0093), it is also selection of a known process based on its suitability for its intended use, supporting a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 19, Spiers further teaches the sterilized seal-able package is a glass or plastic bottle provided with a positive pressure holding hermetic cap (bottle with a top cap 19 Par. 0052 Fig. 9; container may be plastic Par. 0051; gas tight container Par. 0048)
Regarding claim 20, Spiers further teaches the storage temperature of the filled and sealed package is between 1°C to 12°C (stored at 2-5°C Par. 0043).
Regarding claim 21, modified Spiers does not teach the fruit or vegetable for processing are chosen during harvesting to include undamaged fruit or vegetable. However, as the process of modified Spiers centers around a process that preserves freshness, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that selecting undamaged fruit is selecting the freshest fruit to start with.
Claims 2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiers in view of Carbone, Eaton and Hayakawa, further in view of Smith (US 6458398 B1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Spiers teaches the method as claimed in claim 1.
Spiers further teaches wherein in step g the washing and disinfecting of the exterior of the fruit or vegetable is made with a disinfecting solution comprising water and an oxidizing agent (sterilized prior to immersion in the storage solution using a sodium hypochlorite solution Par. 0047).
Spiers, Carbone, Eaton, and Hayakawa do not teach the disinfecting solution is chilled.
Smith, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the disinfecting solution is chilled (cold water method Col. 3 lines 29-35; disinfected fruit Col. 3 lines 8-9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to apply the chilled disinfectant of Smith to the method of modified Spiers. One would have been motivated to make this modification to disinfect while preserving texture and flavor (Smith Col. 3 lines 13-18).
Regarding claim 4, Spiers teaches the fruit or vegetable is sterilized using a sodium hypochlorite solution or any number of commercially available sanitizers (Par. 0047). This would lead one to look to the art for possible alternative sanitizers.
Spiers, Carbone, Eaton, and Hayakawa do not teach the oxidizing agent is ozone in an aqueous ozone solution at a concentration of between 0.5PPM to 2.OPPM and wherein the aqueous ozone solution is applied for a duration of between 0.25 to 6 minutes.
Smith teaches the oxidizing agent is ozone in an aqueous ozone solution (ozonated wash liquor Col. 4 lines 1-2)
at a concentration of between about 0.1PPM to 15PPM (Col. 4 lines 1-3)
and wherein the aqueous ozone solution is applied for a duration of between about 1 to about 60 minutes (Col. 3 lines 3-7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to apply the aqueous ozone of Smith to the method of modified Spiers. One would have been motivated to make this modification to disinfect while preserving texture and flavor (Smith Col. 3 lines 13-18).
Regarding a concentration of ozone of 0.5ppm to 2.0 ppm, Smith teaches about 0.01 ppm to about 15 ppm (Col. 4 lines 1-3, as seen above). As Smith discloses a range which overlaps with the claimed amount, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art to modify Smith to have 0.5ppm to 2.0ppm ozone. It would have been prima facie case of obviousness to have selected the overlapping portion of the range (i.e. 0.5ppm to 2.0ppm) from the taught range of about 0.01ppm to about 15ppm (as seen above). In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding the aqueous ozone solution is applied for a duration of between 0.25 to 6 minutes, Smith teaches between about 1 to about 60 minutes (Col. 3 lines 3-7, as seen above). As Smith discloses a range which overlaps with the claimed amount, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art to modify Smith to apply the solution for between 0.25 to 6 minutes. It would have been prima facie case of obviousness to have selected the overlapping portion of the range (i.e. about 1 to 6 minutes) from the taught range of about 1 to about 60 minutes (as seen above). In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 5, Spiers, Carbone, Eaton, and Hayakawa do not teach the disinfecting solution is chilled to between 2°C and 4°C.
Smith teaches the disinfecting solution is chilled to between about 0°C and about 30°C (Col. 4 lines 5-7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to apply the disinfecting temperature of Smith to the method of modified Spiers. One would have been motivated to make this modification to disinfect while preserving texture and flavor (Smith Col. 3 lines 13-18).
Regarding the disinfecting solution is chilled to between 2°C and 4°C, Smith teaches a disinfecting temperature of between about 0°C and about 30°C (Col. 4 lines 5-7, as seen above). As Smith discloses a range which overlaps with the claimed amount, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art to modify Smith to have a disinfecting temperature of between 2°C and 4°C. It would have been prima facie case of obviousness to have selected the overlapping portion of the range (i.e. 2°C and 4°C) from the taught range of between about 0°C and about 30°C (as seen above). In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiers in view of Carbone, Eaton, Hayakawa, and Smith, further in view of Munger (9,095,152 B2), found in applicant’s IDS filed 09/16/2025, and Fischer (US 2018/0325071 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Spiers teaches the limitations of claim 2.
Modified Spiers does not teach the step of: h. removing the disinfecting solution from the minimally processed fruit or vegetable with forced clean air filtered through a HEPA filter of at least H13 HEPA class.
Munger, in the same field of endeavor, teaches removing the disinfecting solution from a minimally processed fruit or vegetable with forced air (driers blow air over produce Col. 8 lines 61-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to apply the drying of Munger to the method of modified Spiers. One would have been motivated to make this modification to dry without harming the quality of the produce (Munger Col. 9 lines 8-10).
Munger does not teach the forced air is filtered through a HEPA filter of at least H13 HEPA class.
Fischer teaches forced air is filtered through a HEPA filter of at least H13 HEPA class (sterile air filter of HEPA filter unit with a filter of class H13, air forced by blowers Par. 0031).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to apply the filter of Fisher to the method of modified Spiers. As Hayakawa discloses a sterile environment with sterile air (Par. 0007), one would have been motivated to use a filter for the forced air which produces a sterile air (Fischer Par. 0031).
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiers in view of Carbone, Eaton, Hayakawa, further in view of Smith and Munger.
Regarding claim 7, modified Spiers teaches the method as claimed in claim 1.
Spiers further teaches prewashing and disinfecting the exterior of the fruit or vegetable with a disinfecting solution comprising water and an oxidizing agent (washed Par. 0080; preferably sterilized using a sodium hypochlorite solution Par. 0047).
Spiers does not teach a chilled disinfecting solution or removing the disinfecting solution from the fruit or vegetable with forced air.
Carbone, Eaton and Hayakawa do not teach a chilled disinfecting solution or removing the disinfecting solution from the fruit or vegetable with forced air.
Smith teaches the disinfecting solution is chilled (cold water method Col. 3 lines 29-35; disinfected fruit Col. 3 lines 8-9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to apply the chilled disinfectant of Smith to the method of modified Spiers. One would have been motivated to make this modification to disinfect while preserving texture and flavor (Smith Col. 3 lines 13-18).
Smith does not teach removing the disinfecting solution from the fruit or vegetable with forced air.
Munger teaches removing the disinfecting solution from the fruit or vegetable with forced air (driers blow air over produce Col. 8 lines 61-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to apply the drying of Munger to the method of modified Spiers. One would have been motivated to make this modification to dry without harming the quality of the produce (Munger Col. 9 lines 8-10).
Regarding claim 9, Munger teaches keeping the minimally processed fruit or vegetable which are not directly packaged, in a cooled, dry, well-ventilated storage, out of direct sunlight. (throughout entire process produce should be stored at or below 40 degrees Fahrenheit Col. 9 lines 49-52).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to apply the cool temperature of Munger to the method of modified Spiers. One would have been motivated to make this modification to maintain freshness (Munger Col. 3 lines 45-49).
Regarding a dry, well-ventilated storage, as the product has been dried in the prior step it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to maintain the dryness that has been achieved by storing in a dry and ventilated area.
Regarding storing out of direct sunlight, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a controlled environment to maintain the below 40 degrees Fahrenheit taught by Munger, which would require indoor storage and therefore avoid direct sunlight.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiers in view of Carbone, Eaton and Hayakawa, further in view of Ditzler (US 2019/0000117 A1), found in applicant’s IDS filed 09/16/2025.
Regarding claim 12, modified Spiers teaches the method as claimed in claim 10.
Spiers, Carbone and Eaton do not teach the processing of the fruit or vegetable is made in a clean processing area entirely and continuously kept under disinfecting environment, the environment comprising ozone gas at a concentration of between 30 to 200 PPM.
Hayakawa teaches the processing of the fruit or vegetable is made in a clean processing area entirely and continuously kept under disinfecting environment (sterile chamber 13 Par. 0033 Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to further modify the invention of modified Spiers with the disinfected environment of Hayakawa. One would have been motivated to make this modification to avoid the negative effects of heat sterilization, such as deterioration of the beverage or deformation of the container occurs (Hayakawa Par. 0004).
Hayakawa does not teach the environment comprising ozone gas at a concentration of between 30 to 200 PPM.
Ditzler, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an environment comprising ozone gas at a concentration of between 25ppm to 50000ppm (Par. 0025).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to further modify the invention of modified Spiers with the disinfected environment of Hayakawa. One would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce microbes in the environment (Ditzler Par. 0010).
Regarding ozone concentration of between 30 to 200ppm, Ditzler teaches between 25ppm to 50000ppm, as seen above). As Ditzler discloses a range which overlaps with the claimed amount, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art to modify Ditzler to a concentration of between 30 to 200 ppm. It would have been prima facie case of obviousness to have selected the overlapping portion of the range (i.e. 30ppm to 200ppm) from the taught range of 25ppm to 50000ppm (as seen above). In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiers in view of Carbone, Eaton, Hayakawa, and Ditzler, further in view of Smith.
Regarding claim 13, modified Spiers teaches the method as claimed in claim 12, but does not teach wherein in step f, a one or more processing tool or cutting knife used in the process is intermittently disinfected by aqueous ozone solution with concentration of between 1PPM to 2 PPM.
Smith teaches an aqueous ozone solution (ozonated wash liquor Col. 4 lines 1-2)
with a concentration of between about 0.1PPM to 15PPM (Col. 4 lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to apply the aqueous ozone of Smith to the method of modified Spiers. One would have been motivated to make this modification to disinfect quickly (Smith Col. 1 lines 22-30).
Regarding a concentration of ozone of 1ppm to 2ppm, Smith teaches about 0.01 ppm to about 15 ppm (Col. 4 lines 1-3, as seen above). As Smith discloses a range which overlaps with the claimed amount, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art to modify Smith to have 1ppm to 2ppm ozone. It would have been prima facie case of obviousness to have selected the overlapping portion of the range (i.e. 1ppm to 2ppm) from the taught range of about 0.01ppm to about 15ppm (as seen above). In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Smith does not teach a one or more processing tool or cutting knife used in the process is intermittently disinfected with the taught aqueous ozone solution. However, one having ordinary skill in the art would acknowledge the taught disinfecting qualities of the aqueous ozone solution and try to use that benefit to other surfaces in which the product may come in contact with.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiers in view of Carbone, Eaton and Hayakawa, further in view of Bliss (“Canned Pineapple Recipe”).
Regarding claim 16, modified Spiers teaches the method as claimed in claim 14.
Spiers, Carbone and Eaton do not teach wherein the carbonated liquid is a fresh squeezed fruit or vegetable Juice, made of the same type of fruit or vegetable as the minimally processed fruit or vegetable.
Hayakawa teaches the carbonated liquid is a fresh squeezed fruit or vegetable Juice (raw material liquid containing components derived from plants such as fruit juice Par. 0038). As the juice is raw it can be assumed it is relatively fresh to not be spoiled without sterilization treatment.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to further modify the invention of modified Spiers with the juice of Hayakawa. One would have been motivated to make this modification to produce a fruit juice which has reliably prevented propagation of microorganisms (Par. 0093), it is also selection of a known process based on its suitability for its intended use, supporting a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Hayakawa does not teach the juice is made of the same type of fruit or vegetable as the minimally processed fruit or vegetable.
Bliss teaches the juice is made of the same type of fruit or vegetable as the minimally processed fruit or vegetable (pack pineapple with pineapple juice Pg. 8)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to further modify the invention of modified Spiers with the juice type of Hayakawa. One would have been motivated to make this modification to prevent pineapple flavor leaching out of the fruit by storing it in juice with the same flavor (Bliss Pg. 8).
Claim 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiers in view of Carbone, Eaton, Hayakawa and Bliss, further in view of Cuevas Villoslada (WO 2018/096199 A1).
Regarding claim 17, modified Spiers teaches the method as claimed in claim 16.
Spiers teaches carbonizing a liquid with CO2 serving as a preservation enhancer (solution charged with carbon dioxide prior to immersing the fruit in the storage solution Par. 0048 Fig 1; conditions preserve the produce Par 0043).
Spiers does not teach squeezing a portion of the minimally processed fruit or vegetable to fresh juice, without addition of preservatives.
Carbone and Eaton do not teach squeezing a portion of the minimally processed fruit or vegetable to fresh juice, without addition of preservatives.
Hayakawa teaches fresh juice (raw material liquid containing components derived from plants such as fruit juice Par. 0038). As the juice is raw it can be assumed it is relatively fresh to not be spoiled without sterilization treatment.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to further modify the invention of modified Spiers with the juice of Hayakawa. One would have been motivated to make this modification to produce a fruit juice which has reliably prevented propagation of microorganisms (Par. 0093), it is also selection of a known process based on its suitability for its intended use, supporting a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Hayakawa does not teach the method of making the fresh juice, specifically squeezing a portion of the minimally processed fruit or vegetable to fresh juice, without addition of preservatives.
Cuevas Villoslada teaches squeezing a portion of the minimally processed fruit or vegetable to fresh juice, without addition of preservatives (extrusion or squeezing of fruit and juice is obtained, no preservatives added prior to carbonation Par. 0012-15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to further modify the invention of modified Spiers with the juicing of Cuevas Villoslada. One would have been motivated to make this modification to produce the fresh juice taught by Hayakawa, therefore it is selection of a known process based on its suitability for its intended use, supporting a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 18, Spiers teaches carbonation of a liquid by dissolving carbon dioxide in the liquid for a sufficient time to reach saturation (solution charged with carbon dioxide prior to immersing the fruit in the storage solution, gas tight container required to keep gas in solution Par. 0048 Fig 1)
Spiers does not teach the carbonation of the juice is performed at pressure of at least 3 bar, with the temperature of the juice being between 1°C to 10°C.
Carbone does not teach the carbonation of the juice is performed at pressure of at least 3 bar, with the temperature of the juice being between 1°C to 10°C.
Eaton teaches the carbonation of the juice is performed by dissolving carbon dioxide in the juice at pressure of at least 3 bar (fill with beverage add carbon dioxide at 45psi Pg. 2 section “Under Pressure”)
with the temperature of the juice being low (very cold beverage Pg. 2 section “Under Pressure”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the invention of Spiers with the carbonation pressure of Eaton. One would have been motivated to make this modification to select a known process based on its suitability for its intended use, supporting a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Eaton does not teach with the temperature of the juice being between 1°C to 10°C.
Hayakawa teaches the temperature of the juice being between 1°C to 10°C (beverage cooling section, beverage cooled to 1°C or more and 5°C or less Par. 0041).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the invention of Spiers with the carbonation temperature of Hayakawa. One would have been motivated to make this modification so the carbon dioxide is easily dissolved (Hayakawa Par. 0041).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiers in view of Carbone, Eaton, Hayakawa and Bliss, further in view of Zarfeshany (“Potent health effects of pomegranate”).
Regarding claim 22, modified Spiers the method as claimed in claim 16, but does not teach wherein the minimally processed fruit or vegetable are pomegranate seeds extracted from a pomegranate and the Juice is a pomegranate juice.
Zarfeshany, in the same field of endeavor, teaches health benefits of consuming pomegranate seeds extracted from a pomegranate and pomegranate juice (seed Pg. 1-2, juice Pg. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the fruit in juice product of Spiers with the pomegranate seeds and juice of Zarfeshany. One would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the taught benefits such as preventing high blood pressure and high cholesterol (Zarfeshany Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL M RODGERS whose telephone number is (571)272-7857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 5712703475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.M.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights