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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention II in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 is acknowledged.
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 3-10 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.
Claims 3-10 recite “wherein the puree has” followed by properties of the puree. As the invention is drawn to a beverage comprising a puree, it is unclear how one would determine the properties of a single component within the given final product.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1, 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Giuseppin (US 20190082715 A1).
It is noted that the examiner is interpreting “a puree of palm or palm heart” to mean a puree of palm or a puree of palm heart.
Regarding claim 1, Giuseppin teaches a beverage (root or tuber juice Abstract)
comprising: a puree of palm or palm heart (juice is liquid derived from grinding Par. 0030; sago palm Par. 0028)
the puree of palm or palm heart is substantially free from palm shell and palm stem (removal of root or tuber fibers Par. 0041).
Regarding claim 5, Giuseppin teaches the beverage comprises an acid selected from the group consisting of citric acid, acetic acid, fumaric acid, lactic acid, phosphoric acid, malic acid, tartaric acid, ascorbic acid, any derivatives thereof, or any combinations thereof (pH adjustment with acetic acid, citric acid, malic acid or tartaric acid Par. 0042). As the puree is within the beverage, it would be difficult to distinguish if the acid is part of the beverage as a whole or just the puree, so the examiner’s stance is that the acid as a component of the beverage is also a component of the puree.
Regarding claim 10, Giuseppin does not teach the puree has a reduced vegetable flavor compared with raw palm. However, Giuseppin teaches the same invention as that of claim 1 and therefore one would expect the inventions to have the same properties, including taste.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giuseppin.
Regarding claim 3, Giuseppin teaches the limitations of claim 1. Giuseppin further teaches the beverage is filtered to a particle size of below 500 microns (filtration using filters of 10-500 microns resulting in the juice product Par. 0085-0086). As this is the filtration of the beverage, the particles of the puree within the beverage exist within the range of 0-500 and therefore the average of these particles is within this range as well, overlapping with the claimed range.
Regarding the puree has an average particle size from about 50 micron to about 1,000 micron, or from about 100 micron to about 800 micron, or from about 200 micron to about 600 micron, or from about 300 micron to about 500 micron, Giuseppin teaches an average particle size of below 500 microns (Par. 0085-0086, see above rejection). As Giuseppin discloses an overlapping range, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art to modify Giuseppin to have from an average particle size of about 50 micron to about 1,000 micron. It would have been prima facie case of obviousness to have selected the overlapping range (i.e. about 50 micron to 500 micron) from the taught range (below 500 microns, as seen above). In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claims 4-6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giuseppin in view of Lange (WO 2004/084652).
Regarding claim 4, Giuseppin teaches the limitations of claim 1. Giuseppin does not teach the puree has a viscosity from about 100 centipoises to about 5,000 centipoises, or from about 300 centipoises to about 4,000 centipoises, or from about 600 centipoises to about 3,000 centipoises, or from about 900 centipoises to about 2,000 centipoises, or from about 1,500 centipoises to about 2,500 centipoises.
Lange, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a puree having a viscosity from about 100 centipoises to about 5,000 centipoises, or from about 300 centipoises to about 4,000 centipoises, or from about 600 centipoises to about 3,000 centipoises, or from about 900 centipoises to about 2,000 centipoises, or from about 1,500 centipoises to about 2,500 centipoises (692 and 109 cP Pg. 8 Table 1; 222, 333, and 396 Pg. 9 Table 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the invention of Giuseppin with the puree viscosity of Lange. One would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce the need for a thickening agent in the final product (Lange Pg. 2 lines 34-36).
Regarding claim 5, Giuseppin does teach the limitations of claim 5 above.
Additionally, Lange teaches a puree comprising an acid selected from the group consisting of citric acid, acetic acid, fumaric acid, lactic acid, phosphoric acid, malic acid, tartaric acid, ascorbic acid, any derivatives thereof, or any combinations thereof (acidifying agent, e.g. citric acid, lactic acid, tartaric acid, malic acid, phosphoric acid, or acetic acid Pg. 5 lines 3-6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the invention of Giuseppin with the acid of Lange. One would have been motivated to make this modification to use a suitable agent to adjust the pH (Lange Pg. 2 lines 34-36; Giuseppin Par. 0042).
Regarding claim 6, Giuseppin teaches the limitations of claim 1. Giuseppin teaches pH adjustment by dilution with a solvent having a pH between 4 and 8 (Par. 0034; Par. 0042), however, it does not teach the puree has a pH from about 2 to about 8, or from about 3 to about 7, or from about 4 to about 6, or from about 4 to about 5 (dilute with solvent having a pH between 4 and 8.
Lange teaches the puree has a pH from about 2 to about 8, or from about 3 to about 7, or from about 4 to about 6, or from about 4 to about 5 (pH adjusted to within the range of 3 to 5 Pg. 5 lines 3-6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the invention of Giuseppin with the pH of Lange. One would have been motivated to make this modification to produce a product with better storage stability improved organoleptic properties (Lange Pg. 2 lines 34-36; Giuseppin Par. 0042).
Regarding claim 12, Giuseppin teaches the limitations of claim 1. Giuseppin does not teach the beverage further comprising a fruit juice, wherein the fruit is selected from the group consisting of citrus fruits, oranges, lemons, grapefruits, pomelos, limes, various true or hybrid cultivars thereof, and any combinations thereof.
Lange teaches addition of a fruit juice, wherein the fruit is selected from the group consisting of citrus fruits, oranges, lemons, grapefruits, pomelos, limes, various true or hybrid cultivars thereof, and any combinations thereof (lemon juice Pg. 5 lines 3-6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the invention of Giuseppin with the fruit juice of Lange. One would have been motivated to make this modification to produce a product with better storage stability improved organoleptic properties (Lange Pg. 2 lines 34-36; Giuseppin Par. 0042).
Claims 3 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giuseppin in view of Gupta (US 2019/0364939 A1), found in applicant’s IDS filed 08/01/2025.
Regarding claim 3, Giuseppin does teach the limitations of claim 3 above.
Gupta further teaches a puree having an average particle size of below 300 microns (Claim 18).
Regarding the puree has an average particle size from about 50 micron to about 1,000 micron, or from about 100 micron to about 800 micron, or from about 200 micron to about 600 micron, or from about 300 micron to about 500 micron, Gupta teaches an average particle size of below 300 microns (Claim 18, see above rejection). As Gupta discloses an overlapping range, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art to modify Gupta to have from an average particle size of about 50 micron to about 1,000 micron. It would have been prima facie case of obviousness to have selected the overlapping range (i.e. about 50 micron to 300 micron) from the taught range (below 300 microns, as seen above). In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 7, Giuseppin teaches the limitations of claim 1. Giuseppin does not teach the puree has a total carbohydrates from about 2 g/100g to about 20 g/100g, or from about 3 g/100g to about 18 g/100g, or from about 4 g/100g to about 16 g/100g, or from about 5 g/100g to about 14 g/100g, or from about 5 g/100g to about 10 g/100g, or from about 5 g/100g to about 8 g/100g, or from about 5 g/100g to about 6 g/100g.
Gupta, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a puree having a total carbohydrates from about 2 g/100g to about 20 g/100g, or from about 3 g/100g to about 18 g/100g, or from about 4 g/100g to about 16 g/100g, or from about 5 g/100g to about 14 g/100g, or from about 5 g/100g to about 10 g/100g, or from about 5 g/100g to about 8 g/100g, or from about 5 g/100g to about 6 g/100g (13g carbohydrates/114g puree Table 2). This gives total carbohydrates of 11.4g/100g.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the invention of Giuseppin with the carbohydrate content of Gupta. One would have been motivated to make this modification to provide a product with low sugar content (Gupta Par. 0029).
Regarding claim 8, Giuseppin teaches the limitations of claim 1. Giuseppin does not teach the puree has a total fiber content from about 0.1 g/100g to about 10 g/100g, or from about 0.3 g/100g to about 8 g/100g, or from about 0.5 g/100g to about 6 g/100g, or from about 1 g/100g to about 4 g/100g, or from about 1.5 g/100g to about 3 g/100g, or from about 2 g/100g to about 2.5 g/100g.
Gupta teaches the puree has a total fiber content from about 0.1 g/100g to about 10 g/100g, or from about 0.3 g/100g to about 8 g/100g, or from about 0.5 g/100g to about 6 g/100g, or from about 1 g/100g to about 4 g/100g, or from about 1.5 g/100g to about 3 g/100g, or from about 2 g/100g to about 2.5 g/100g (1g fiber/114g puree Table 2). This gives a total fiber content of .88g/100g.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the invention of Giuseppin with the fiber content of Gupta. One would have been motivated to make this modification to provide dietary fiber for children and toddler who are usually lacking (Par. 0030).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giuseppin in view of Mann (US 2018/0064130 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Giuseppin teaches the limitations of claim 1. Giuseppin further teaches the beverage has a solid content of at least 25 wt% (root or tuber juice with a dry matter content of at least 25 wt. % Par. 0142), but does not teach the puree has a solid content from about 1 wt% to about 50 wt%, or from about 2 wt% to about 40 wt%, or from about 3 wt% to about 30 wt%, or from about 4 wt% to about 20 wt%, or from about 5 wt% to about 15 wt%, or from about 6 wt% to about 10wt%.
Mann, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a puree having a solid content from about 1 wt% to about 50 wt%, or from about 2 wt% to about 40 wt%, or from about 3 wt% to about 30 wt%, or from about 4 wt% to about 20 wt%, or from about 5 wt% to about 15 wt%, or from about 6 wt% to about 10wt% (puree may have between 9% and 20% or between 20% and 35% Par. 0024).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the invention of Giuseppin with the solids content of Mann. One would have been motivated to make this modification to produce a puree with an increased solids content compared to the original component to reduce denaturing or proteins in the final product (Mann Par. 0016).
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