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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 30, 2026 and April 9, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendments stands as follows:
Pending claims:
1-3, 5-8, 10, 12-14, 16-17, 20, 23-24, 30, 33
Withdrawn claims:
30
Previously canceled claims:
4, 9, 11, 15, 18-19, 21-22, 25-29, 31-32
Newly canceled claims:
None
Amended claims:
1
New claims:
33
Claims currently under consideration:
1-3, 5-8, 10, 12-14, 16-17, 20, 23-24, 33
Currently rejected claims:
1-3, 5-8, 10, 12-14, 16-17, 20, 23-24, 33
Allowed claims:
None
The Examiner notes that claim 14 is designated at “(Currently amended)”. However, claim 14 has not been amended from what was previously presented. Thus, claim 14 should be designated as “(Previously Presented)”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 33 is 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 33 recites the limitation “about 25% of glucose and fructose”. This recitation renders the claim indefinite because one of ordinary skill would not be appraised to the scope of the claim. It is unclear if the composition comprises glucose and fructose in a total amount of about 25%, or about 25% each. For the purposes of examination, it is presumed that the first fraction comprises about 25% of each glucose and fructose based on the data provided in Table 2 of the instant specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 12-14, 16, 17, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (US PGPub 2004/0197448 A1)(IDS Reference filed 02/28/2023) in view of Dechow (US 4,522,836 A).
Regarding claim 1, Chung teaches a process for deacidifying orange juice with ion exchange resin (Abstract) and that weak anion resins are preferred ([0012]). Chung also teaches that the rate of juice through the resin influences the ability for the resin to absorb the ions, so the flow rate is adjusted ([0043]). The initial pH of the deacidified orange juice was 3.5 (Fig. 1) and that preferably the pH does not exceed 4.6 ([0016]). The instant specification teaches that the pKa of ascorbic acid is 4.1-4.2 (p. 7, ¶ 7). Therefore, the initial and final pH taught by Chung satisfies the pH requirement of claim 1 of:
(3.6-4.5) < 4.6 or less < 4.2-4.7.
Chung also teaches that the invention includes a preconditioning step that decreases the binding affinity of the resin to a controlled degree, allowing the resin to adsorb the desired amount of acidic ions of the juice, and that such compositions for preconditioning includes ascorbic acid ([0035]). Although Chung does not explicitly disclose that essentially no ascorbic acid is adsorbed, Chung does state that the resin is conditioned to a desired amount without greatly altering the deacidified juice from its desired pH ([0035]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the amount of ascorbic acid used for preconditioning during routine optimization to remove essentially no ascorbic acid to maintain the desired pH of the deacidified juice. MPEP §2144.05(II) states generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Chung does not teach that the initial exchange speed is greater than or equal to +0.10 unit of pH/minute observed after 5 minutes of contact of the juice with the resin in a volume ratio of 5:1 (juice:resin).
Regarding the initial exchange speed is greater than or equal to +0.10 unit of pH/minute observed after 5 minutes of contact of the juice with the resin, Chung teaches that the rate of flow of juice through the resin influences the ability of the resin to adsorb the ions and reduce the acidity of the juice ([0043]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the flow rate of the juice through the column, which would then directly impact the adsorption speed of the resin during routine optimization to ensure that the resin is adsorbing the appropriate amount of ions to reduce the acidity of the juice. MPEP §2144.05(II) states where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The claimed range would thus be obvious.
Regarding the volume ratio of 5:1 (juice:resin), Dechow teaches of an ion exchange treatment for juices, where the volume of the resin relative to the volume of the juice being treated is large enough to extract a substantial amount of the natural acidity of the juice (Abstract). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted volume ratio of resin to juice during routine optimization to ensure there was a sufficient amount of resin to reduce the acidity of the juice. MPEP §2144.05(II) states where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The claimed range would thus be obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Chung also teaches that Dowex 77 resin has a capacity of 62% acid removed at a 20 column volume capacity ([0027]) and that when Dowex 77 resin was used, the actual capacity was 62% of the acid removed from orange juice at the 20 bed volume sample ([0048]-[0050]). Because the resin removed 62% acid, it logically follows that the orange juice was loaded on the resin at 100% of the calculated loading capacity of the resin, which falls within the claimed range of “75% to 125%”.
Regarding claim 5, Chung teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above. Chung also teaches that resins include resins with tertiary amine functional groups with a pH control range of 9.6 to 3.5 ([0028]), i.e., is ionized at a pH range of 9.6 to 3.5 (which falls within the claimed range of “lower than 10”) and neutral at a pH above 9.6 (which overlaps with the claimed range of “greater than 10”).
With respect to the overlapping ranges, MPEP §2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 6, Chung also teaches that resins include those having an acrylic matrix ([0028]) and polystyrene copolymer ([0024]).
Regarding claim 12, Chung does not teach wherein the orange juice is circulated in an up flow column during elution.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Dechow teaches the process of treating an acidic juice by passing through weak base anion resin in an upwardly flowing direction (Abstract) and that the juice may be orange juice (col. 5, lines 27-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Chung by flowing the juice upward through the column as taught by Dechow. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Dechow teaches that juice flowing upward results in a slow rolling motion of the resin (Abstract), and that the rolling motion of the bed promotes a more uniform contact between bed particles and juice but avoids entrapment of suspended particles at any localized regions of the bed (col. 8, lines 37-41).
Regarding claim 13, Chung also teaches that the pH of the deacidified orange juice (i.e., pHe) should remain less than 4.6 during processing (which falls within the claimed range of “does not exceed 5”; [0016]), which one of ordinary skill would understand to include remaining less than 4.6 when exiting the column.
Regarding claim 14, Chung also teaches that the pH of the deacidified juice should be controlled to 4.6 or less to control bacterial growth (Abstract). Therefore, it logically follows that the resulting juice would be 4.6 or less, which overlaps with the claimed range of “between about 4 and less than about 5”.
With respect to the overlapping ranges, MPEP §2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 16, Chung also teaches that the pH of the deacidified juice should be controlled to 4.6 or less to control bacterial growth (Abstract). Therefore, it logically follows that the resulting juice would be 4.6 or less, which overlaps with the claimed range of “about 4.6”.
With respect to the overlapping ranges, MPEP §2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 17, Chung also teaches a step of centrifuging the orange juice prior to decalcification (i.e., a pre-treatment; [0049]).
Regarding claim 23, Chung also teaches regenerating the resin to use it again ([0014]).
Claims 2, 24, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (US PGPub 2004/0197448 A1)(IDS Reference filed 02/28/2023) in view of Dechow (US 4,522,836 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blase (US 2011/0165310 A1) and Rousseau (EP 0020124 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Chung teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above. Chung also teaches conditioning the resin using an aqueous citric acid solution ([0035]) and that the juice contacts the conditioned resin ([0022]).
Chung does not teach that the preconditioned resin is a strong cation exchange resin or recovering a first fraction of sugar-reduced orange juice after a step of eluting, wherein said first fraction comprises about 30% to about 80% by weight of the total sugar of the deacidified orange juice.
Regarding recovering a first fraction of sugar-reduced orange juice after a step of eluting, wherein said first fraction comprises about 30% to about 80% by weight of the total sugar of the deacidified orange juice, Blase teaches a method of reducing the sugar content of a juice by passing it through an ionic material (Abstract) that can be a cationic resin ([0106]). Blase also teaches the process involving feeding orange juice and fractionating it into sugar enriched fraction and a sugar starved fraction ([0029]). Although Blase does not teach that the sugar enriched fraction is the first fraction, Fig. 3 shows that brix (the measure of the amount of sugar in a composition; [0006]) peaked in the first half of the effluents (Fig. 3). Therefore, it logically follows that the sugar enriched fraction would be the first fraction collected.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chung that also uses ion exchange to collect a first fraction that is sugar rich as taught by Blase. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to make this modification because Blase teaches that removal of a sugar rich fraction leaves a sugar reduced fraction, which can be used to make a beverage with a lower amount of calories (Abstract).
Regarding the resin being a strong cation exchange resin, Rousseau teaches a process of treating aqueous sugar solutions with both strong cation exchange resin and weak anion exchange resin (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Chung in view of Blase to have a process that uses both a strong cation exchange resin and weak anion exchange resin as taught by Rousseau. The claim would have been obvious because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP §2143(A). Although Rousseau teaches the anion and cation resins being mixed together, MPEP §2144.04(IV)(C) states “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results”, In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have two subsequent ion exchange steps, with the weak anion exchange resin taught by Chung first and the strong cation exchange resin taught by Rousseau second.
Although the cited prior art does not teach that the first fraction comprises about 30% to about 80% by weight of the total sugar of the deacidified juice, Blase teaches for the sugar-reduced fraction, not all of the sugar needs to be removed from the beverage ([0015]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the amount sugar in the sugar enhanced fraction during routine optimization to contain the amount of sugar necessary to produce a reduced sugar fraction that has the desired amount of sugar remaining. MPEP §2144.05(II) states where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The claimed range would thus be obvious.
Regarding claim 24, Chung teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above.
Chung does not teach concentrating the deacidified orange juice.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Blase teaches passing a juice through a bed of material (claim 1) where the bed is a resin bed (claim 9), and then concentrating the juice (claim 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process taught by Chung with the addition of a concentration step after the process of passing the juice through resin as taught by Blase. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Blase teaches that concentrating results in a reduction in volume compared to standard juice ([0017]), which one of ordinary skill would recognize to be desirable for storage and transportation.
Regarding claim 33, although the cited prior art does not teach the amount sucrose, glucose, and fructose in the first fraction, Blase teaches for the sugar-reduced fraction, not all of the sugar needs to be removed from the beverage ([0015]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the amount sucrose, fructose, and glucose in the sugar enhanced fraction during routine optimization to contain the amount of sugar necessary to produce a reduced sugar fraction that has the desired amount of sugar remaining. MPEP §2144.05(II) states where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The claimed range would thus be obvious.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (US PGPub 2004/0197448 A1)(IDS Reference filed 02/28/2023) in view of Dechow (US 4,522,836 A) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Norman (US 4,666,721 A).
Regarding claim 7, Chung also teaches that the resin includes those having an acrylic matrix ([0028]).
Chung does not teach wherein the resin has a capacity between 1.6-3.2.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Norman teaches a process of removing acid from fruit juice using weak base resin (i.e., weak anion resin; Abstract) where the resin can be acrylic type (col. 2, lines 41-44) and that the capacity of the resins is about 1 to about 2 (col. 2, lines 57-58), which overlaps with the claimed range of “1.6-3.2”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Chung by substituting the acrylic resin of Chung with an acrylic resin with a capacity taught by Norman. The claim would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to make this simple substitution of one known element for another and yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP §2143(B).
With respect to the overlapping ranges, MPEP §2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (US PGPub 2004/0197448 A1)(IDS Reference filed 02/28/2023) in view of Blase (US 2011/0165310 A1), Dechow (US 4,522,836 A) and Rousseau (EP 0020124 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Regas (Regas, F. P. “Physical characterization of suspension-crosslinked polystyrene particles and their sulphonated products: 2. Ionic networks”, Polymer, Vol. 25, published February 1984 [accessed online September 19, 2025]).
Regarding claim 8, The cited prior art does not teach wherein the cation exchange resin is made of a polystyrene matrix with a sulphonate functional group.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Regas teaches of strong cationic resins prepared from sulfonating polystyrene (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process taught by Chung in view of Rousseau to substitute the strong cation resin of Rousseau with the use of the strong cation polystyrene sulfonate resin as taught by Regan. The claim would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to make this simple substitution of one known element for another known art equivalent and yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP §2143(B).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (US PGPub 2004/0197448 A1)(IDS Reference filed 02/28/2023) in view of Dechow (US 4,522,836 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further evidenced by Dow (“DOWEX MONOSPHERE 77”, Dow, Product Information, Form No. 177-01710-0209 [accessed online September 19, 2025] chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://wetco-eg.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/DOWEX%E2%84%A2-MONOSPHERE%E2%84%A2-77.pdf)
Regarding claim 10, Chung teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above. Chung also teaches that the resin may be Dowex 77 resin ([0027]), which necessarily has a median particle size of 475-600 µm (which falls within the claimed range of “between 300 and 600 µm”). Evidence to support the particle size of Dowex 77 is provided by Dow. Dow teaches that Dowex 77 has a volume median diameter (i.e., particle size) of 475-600 µm (p. 1, Typical Physical and Chemical Properties, row 4).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (US PGPub 2004/0197448 A1)(IDS Reference filed 02/28/2023) in view of Dechow (US 4,522,836 A) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Reynaud (US 2019/0216112 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Chung does not teach wherein the juice clarified to a turbidity below 500 NTU.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Reynaud teaches a process of deacidifying a juice (Abstract), where clarification of the juice is done to obtain a juice with a turbidity below 500 NTU ([0085]), which matches the claimed range of “below 500 NTU”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Chung with the step of clarifying the juice to a turbidity of less than 500 NTU as taught by Reynaud. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Reynaud teaches that the pretreatment step has the advantage of preventing clogging of the column ([0086]).
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 1, 3, 5-6, 12-14, 16-17, and 32 over Chung and Dechow: Applicant’s arguments filed March 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued a skilled person in the art would not have had an expectation of success in producing a deacidified orange juice with no loss of ascorbic acid and that there is no disclosure in Chung or Dechow to lead a person to contemplate that ascorbic acid could be retained (Remarks, p. 6, ¶ 3- 7, ¶ 1).
This argument has been considered. However, as described in the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above, Chung also teaches that the invention includes a preconditioning step that decreases the binding affinity of the resin to a controlled degree, allowing the resin to adsorb the desired amount of acidic ions of the juice, and that such compositions for preconditioning includes ascorbic acid ([0035]). Although Chung does not explicitly disclose that essentially no ascorbic acid is adsorbed, Chung does state that the resin is conditioned to a desired amount without greatly altering the deacidified juice from its desired pH ([0035]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the amount of ascorbic acid used for preconditioning during routine optimization to remove essentially no ascorbic acid to maintain the desired pH of the deacidified juice. MPEP §2144.05(II) states generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Thus, the claimed limitation would be obvious.
Applicant further argued that there is an unexpected technical effect observed specifically for orange juice and that the process results in unexpectedly beneficial properties (Remarks, p. 7, ¶ 2- p. 8, ¶ 1).
This argument has been considered. However, the data provided by the instant specification is insufficient for a demonstration of unexpected results. MPEP §716.02(d) states that “Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980)” and “To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).” The data provided by the Applicant does not demonstrate unexpected results over the claimed range.
Furthermore, as discussed above, Chung also teaches that the invention includes a preconditioning step that decreases the binding affinity of the resin to a controlled degree, allowing the resin to adsorb the desired amount of acidic ions of the juice, and that such compositions for preconditioning includes ascorbic acid ([0035]). Thus, the method of Chung contains a means for performing the deacidification step without adsorbing any ascorbic acid. Thus, Chung in view of Dechow renders claim 1 obvious.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 2 and 24 over Chung, Dechow Blase, and Rousseau; Claim 7 over Chung, Dechow, and Norman; claim 8 over Chung, Dechow, Blase, Rousseau, and Regas; claim 10 over Chung, Dechow, and Dow; claim 20 over Chung, Dechow, and Reynaud: Applicant's arguments as related to claim 1 are determined to be unpersuasive as detailed below. Examiner further maintains that the dependent claims are properly rejected in light of the cited combinations of prior art as described in the claim rejections.
The rejections of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 12-14, 16-17, 20, and 23-24 have been maintained herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda S Hawkins whose telephone number is (703)756-1530. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:00a-4:00p, F 8:00a-1:00p ET.
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, Emily Le can be reached at (571) 272-0903. 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.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights