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 .
The amendments and response filed on May 04, 2026 are received.
Claim 37 is canceled by Applicant. Claims 1-13 and 16-19 were previously canceled.
New claim 38 is added.
Claims 14, 15, 20-36 and 38 are pending in this application, claims 24-36 are withdrawn from further consideration (See Restriction/Election below), and claims 14, 15, 20-23 and 38 are pending in this application and are being examined.
Restriction/Election:
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 14, 15, 20-23 and 38, in the reply filed on 05/04/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions (Groups II, , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/04/2026.
Claim Rejection - 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 14, 15, 20-23 and 38 are ejected 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 14, part (iv), recites the limitation "the plant-sourced microbes from the tea" in claim 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because, the preceding parts of claim 14 do no recite plant-sourced microbes.
Suggestion to obviate the rejection: provide antecedent basis.
Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14, 15 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Merill et al. (Merill, R., Hoberecht, K., McKeon, J. 1998. Organic teas from compost and Manures. Organic Farming Research Foundation. P.O. Box 440 Santa Cruz, California 95061, Abstract and p. 1-48).
Claim Interpretation: In claim 14 the phrase “for the high density culture of bacteria” is not given patentable weight because it occurs in preamble and further because the body of the claim describes complete process steps.
Regarding claim 14, Merill et al. disclose a method of preparing a medium for the high density culture of bacteria comprising the steps of: i) combining a pre-processed organic slurry of plant material with a sterile diluent to make a tea slurry, wherein the tea slurry comprises a liquid tea component; ii) allowing nutrients to effuse out of the pre-processed organic slurry into the liquid tea component of the tea slurry; iii) harvesting the liquid tea from the tea slurry (passive tea extraction, soak-in water method, feedstock left to soak in water, left to soak, .. drain out the liquid) (See for example, p. 4 paragraph 1.2.1. -Continued on p. 5); iv) eliminating the plant-sourced microbes from the tea to make a sterile growth infusion (sterilized or micron filtered tea) (See for example, p. 8 1st paragraph), wherein a medium for the high density culture of bacteria comprises the sterile growth infusion (organic teas concentrate the beneficial microbes and is an inoculum for beneficial microbes) (See for example, p. 8 4th paragraph).
Regarding claims 15, Merill et al. disclose the plant sourced microbes are eliminated using micro-filtration or pasteurization (sterilized or micron filtered tea) (See for example, p. 8 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 20, Merill et al. disclose the plant sourced microbes are eliminated by autoclaving (sterilized tea) (See for example, p. 8 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 21, Merill et al. disclose the pre-processed organic slurry of plant material comprise agricultural byproducts (agricultural byproducts) (agricultural waste and composts, etc.) (See for example, p. 2 Table 1, 2nd paragraph, and p. 8 3rd paragraph).
Regarding claim 22, Merill et al. disclose the agricultural byproduct is plant waste or compost (organic tea, agricultural waste and composts, etc.) (See for example, p. 2 Table 1, 2nd paragraph, and p. 8 3rd paragraph).
Regarding claim 23, Merill et al. teach agricultural byproduct is from the beverage or food industry (organic tea) (See for example, p. 1 paragraph 1.1).
Merill et al. therefore anticipate the claimed method.
Claim Rejection - 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.
Claims 14, 15, 20-23 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merill et al. (Merill, R., Hoberecht, K., McKeon, J. 1998. Organic teas from compost and Manures. Organic Farming Research Foundation. P.O. Box 440 Santa Cruz, California 95061, Abstract and p. 1-48) as applied to claims 14, 15 and 20-23 above, and further in view of Susantikarn et al. (International Food Research Journal, 2016, 23(3): 1327-1331).
The teachings of Merill et al. with respect to the limitations of claims 14, 15 and 20-23 were discussed above in detail.
Merill et al. teach do not teach drying the liquid tea to produce a soluble powder (claim 38).
However, before the effective filing dated of the invention, Susantikarn et al. teach a drying technique for producing dried soluble tea powder (soluble tea powder produced by spray drying, and spray drying is a well-established method and widely used technique to produce powders from liquid) (See for example, p. 1327 “Introduction” left-hand column and right-hand column “Sample preparation” – Continued on p. 1328 left-hand column 1st paragraph).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been capable of applying a known drying technique taught by the prior art to dry the liquid tea produced by the method of the Merill et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in drying the liquid tea and producing a soluble powder.
Conclusion(s):
No claims(s) is allowed at this time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KADE ARIANI whose telephone number is (571)272-6083. The examiner can normally be reached IFP, Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM -4:00 PM EST.
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, Melenie L. Gordon can be reached at (571)272-8037. 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.
/KADE ARIANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1651
Prosecution Insights