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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/01/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-11 and 13-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 112(a) and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 04/01/2026, except where otherwise stated.
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 1-11 and 13-20 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.
The term “hot pasteurization” in claims 1 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “hot” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-8 are rejected as indefinite as a result of depending upon indefinite claim 1.
Claims 10-11 and 13-20 are rejected as indefinite as a result of depending upon indefinite claim 9.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the raw juice separation device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 14-16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otterstatter (US 20210153527 A1) in view of Black (US 5403604 A), Ning (CN 109043405 A), and Lawhon (US 4643902 A).
Regarding claim 1, Otterstatter teaches (Paragraph 0006) a method and apparatus for preparing a filtered beverage, including filtering a raw beverage using a cross-flow ultrafiltration device (liquid-solid separation device) to produce a solids fraction (filter stage retentate) and a liquid fraction (filter stage permeate); heating the solids fraction (filter stage retentate) to produce a pasteurized solids fraction; microfiltering the liquid fraction (filter stage permeate) through a microfilter (microorganism reduction device) to produce a microfiltered liquid fraction; and combining the pasteurized solids fraction and the microfiltered liquid fraction to result in the filtered beverage (final juice comprising solids), wherein, in some embodiments, the beverage is a fruit juice. Also, Otterstatter teaches (Paragraph 0048) the microfiltration device may house a microfilter selected to retain most, substantially all, or all microbes present in the liquid fraction, wherein the microfiltration device is capable of sterilizing the separated liquid fraction. In addition, Otterstatter teaches (Paragraph 0041) in some embodiments, the solids fraction includes most or substantially all of the suspended solids of the raw beverage (meaning that the filter stage permeate leaving the liquid-solid separation device is substantially solid-free). Consequently, the microfiltered sterile liquid produced from the liquid fraction would also be substantially solid-free juice. Furthermore, Otterstatter teaches (Paragraph 0037, 0041) the solids fraction from the ultrafiltration device (liquid-solid separation device) contains substantially all of the suspended solids, which include pulp (and a filter that separates out suspended solids would likely, if not necessarily separate out any larger non-suspended solids). Also, Otterstatter teaches (Paragraph 0042) the liquid fraction (which will be juice in embodiments where the starting material is raw fruit juice) from the ultrafiltration device (liquid-solid separation device) includes water-soluble compounds including sugars. Additionally, Otterstatter teaches (Paragraph 0055) utilizing water recirculation to help wash more sugars and other small molecules from the solids fraction.
Otterstatter is silent on a raw juice separation device to separate the raw juice feed into two fractions: a first fraction and a second fraction, wherein smaller solid particles having a size less than 0.5 mm and liquid pass to the second fraction, wherein wash water is introduced during separation to transfer some or all of the sugars and other desirable species from the first fraction to the second fraction, wherein the desirable species comprise one or more of bioactive species, flavor-contributing components, aroma-contributing components, and nutrients, and wherein the first fraction is moved to a hot pasteurization device, when present, and/or removed from the system. Otterstatter is further silent on a reverse osmosis (RO) device, wherein filter stage permeate from the one or more liquid-solid separation device(s) is separated into a RO permeate comprising process water and a RO retentate comprising substantially solid-free juice comprising at least one of juice, sugars and other desirable species; wherein only the RO retentate is introduced to the at least one microorganism reduction device to sterilize or reduce the bioburden of same.
Black teaches (Col. 1,lines 9-10; Col. 2, lines 49-52; Col. 3, lines 14-16) a process of separating sugars from juices, wherein a fruit juice is passed through a UF membrane (liquid-solid separation device) resulting in a UF retentate and a UF permeate, and wherein the juice (which is understood to include a pulp fraction since pulp is separated in the preliminary filtration) has been preliminarily filtered (which requires the use of a filter/ raw juice separation device) to remove seeds, pulp and miscellaneous solids (first fraction) from the juice (second fraction comprising liquid). Black does not disclose any step of re-introducing the removed seeds, pulp, and miscellaneous solids back to the system, and indicates that removal of the seeds, pulp, and miscellaneous solids is performed to reduce clogging of the filters (Col. 2, lines 52-55). Therefore, the first fraction is understood to be removed from the system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify system of Otterstatter to include a raw juice separation device to separate the raw juice feed into two fractions: a first fraction and a second fraction comprising smaller solid particles and liquid, wherein the first fraction is removed from the system, in view of Black, since both are directed to methods of filtering and processing juice, since separating a raw juice feed into a first fraction and a second fraction comprising smaller solid particles and liquid prior to passing the juice through an ultrafiltration device (liquid-solid separation device) is known in the art as shown by Black, since the inclusion of a pulp separation device for preliminary removal of pulp will allow for a more efficient ultrafiltration process because the filters will not clog as quickly (Black, Col. 2, lines 53-55), since the pulp separation device can remove large components like pulp and seeds that would be undesirable due to the effect on the resultant texture of the beverage and potential choking hazards, and since inclusion of a pulp separation device to provide additional filtering of the raw juice will improve the overall separation of undesired materials from the raw juice providing a purer product.
Furthermore, as noted above, Otterstatter teaches (Paragraph 0055) utilizing water recirculation to help wash more sugars and other small molecules from the solids fraction, referring to the solids fraction from the ultrafiltration (liquid-solid separation) device. Also, as shown above by Black, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a pulp separation device prior to an ultrafiltration device for the reasons stated above, namely to allow for a more efficient ultrafiltration process because the filters will not clog as quickly.
In consideration of both Otterstatter and Black, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to introduce wash water during separation via the raw juice separation device to transfer some or all of the sugars and other desirable species from the first fraction into the second fraction, since use of wash water to wash sugars and other small molecules from a solids fraction is known from Otterstatter, since extracting a first fraction containing seeds and pulp (solids) from a second fraction comprising juice prior to liquid-solid separation using an ultrafiltration device is known from Black, since recovery of the sugars and other molecules would allow the sugars and other small molecules to be preserved and/or reintroduced into the fruit juice to provide additional flavor or nutrition, improving the production process and preventing loss of desirable materials, and since using recirculated wash water allows recovery of usable materials without the need for addition water and the associated costs thereof.
Additionally, the claimed separation of fine pulp having a size less than 0.5 mm would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Otterstatter, as modified above, based upon factors such as the desired mouthfeel and texture of the processed juice (where larger pulp will create a thicker and more viscous mouthfeel and texture), the intended subsequent processing and equipment used therein (where pulp that is too large can clog or block subsequent filtration devices), the desired appearance of the processed juice, the intended nutritional content of the processed juice (where the separated pulp smaller than a certain size will limit the fiber content of the juice), etc. Furthermore, the Applicant has neither demonstrated the criticality nor identified any unique or unexpected benefit of the claimed separation of fine pulp having a size less than 0.5 mm that would render it non-obvious.
Furthermore, since Otterstatter, as modified above, is silent with regards to separation of fine pulp having a size less than 0.5 mm one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art for suitable range of pulp sizes from separation.
Ning teaches (Paragraph 0004, 0011) a method and apparatus for production of lychee juice, wherein lychee juice is produced by peeling, pitting, and pulping, and passing the lychee juice through a coarse filter (large pulp separation device) followed by a fine filter, wherein a coarse filtration machine comprises a 0.5 mm screen (large pulp separation device) used to obtain the coarse filtrate (where pulp having a size less than 0.5 mm would pass through the 0.5 mm screen, and resulting in a second fraction comprising fine pulp and liquid).
Selection of a known filtration size (device configuration) based on its suitability for its intended use (filtration of pulp in juice) supports a prima facie obviousness determination (See MPEP 2144.07).
Lawhon teaches (Col. 4, lines 1-27; Fig. 1 #10, 12, 13) a system and process for producing food juice wherein fresh extracted juice (raw juice feed) is subjected to ultrafiltration 10 to produce a UF permeate 12 and a UF retentate 13. Lawhon further teaches (Col. 5, lines 3-5; Col. 6, lines 40-49; Fig. 1 #11, 14, 17) the UF permeate is subjected to reverse osmosis stage 11 (which necessitates a reverse osmosis device) which produces RO retentate 14 and discharges water as an RO permeate effluent 17. Additionally, Lawhon teaches (Col. 6, lines 24-27; Fig. 1 #22, 24) the RO retentate can be passed through a bacteriological filter stage 22 (microorganism reduction )prior to the recombining stage 24 to further ensure the absence of spoilage microorganism, where Figure 1 shows that only the RO retentate fraction is introduced to the at least one microorganism reduction device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Otterstatter to provide a reverse osmosis (RO) device, wherein all filter stage permeate from the at least one or more liquid-solid separation device(s) is separated into a RO permeate comprising process water and a RO retentate comprising substantially solid-free juice comprising at least one of juice, sugars and other desirable species and wherein only the RO retentate is introduced to the at least one microorganism reduction device to sterilize or reduce the bioburden of same in view of Lawhon since both are directed to methods of processing juice by subjecting juice to ultrafiltration and microorganism reduction, since providing a reverse osmosis (RO) device, wherein all filter stage permeate from the at least one or more liquid-solid separation device(s) is separated into a RO permeate comprising process water and a RO retentate comprising juice and wherein only the RO retentate is introduced to the at least one microorganism reduction device is known in the art as shown by Lawhon, since reverse osmosis (RO) can concentrate the flavor and aroma components in a RO retentate which can then be recombined with the UF retentate to provide a juice suitable for storage or removed in the concentrated form for later dilution before use, or further processed for use as a food, cosmetics, feed, or industrial products ingredient (Lawhon, Col. 3, lines 15-23), and since RO permeate can be recycled through the ultrafiltration membrane providing the further advantage of allowing the juice to be processed either with minimum or no water addition (Lawhon, Col. 3, lines 31-35).
Regarding claim 2, Otterstatter teaches (Paragraph 0055) utilizing water recirculation with water separated in reverse osmosis (RO permeate) to help wash more sugars and other small molecules from the solids fraction, referring to the solids fraction from the ultrafiltration (liquid-solid separation) device. It is noted that this is a different embodiment of Otterstatter than the embodiment described in claim 1 above, and the RO permeate is sent to the liquid-solid separation device rather than the raw juice separation device.
Also, as shown above by Black, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a pulp separation device prior to an ultrafiltration device for the reasons stated above, namely to allow for a more efficient ultrafiltration process because the filters will not clog as quickly.
Furthermore, as shown above by Lawhon, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the use of a reverse osmosis device after ultrafiltration to produce a RO permeate comprising water that can be recycled to the ultrafiltration device.
In consideration of Otterstatter, Black, and Lawhon, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to introduce RO permeate as wash water to the raw juice separation device, since use of wash water from reverse osmosis to wash sugars and other small molecules from a solids fraction is known from Otterstatter, since extracting a first fraction containing seeds and pulp (solids) with a raw juice separation device prior to liquid-solid separation using an ultrafiltration device is known from Black, since recycling RO permeate to an earlier stage of processing is known in the art as shown by Lawhon, since recovery of the sugars and other molecules would allow the sugars and other small molecules to be preserved and/or reintroduced into the fruit juice to provide additional flavor or nutrition, improving the production process and preventing loss of desirable materials, and since RO permeate can be recycled providing the further advantage of allowing the juice to be processed either with minimum or no water addition (Lawhon, Col. 3, lines 31-35).
Regarding claim 4, Otterstatter teaches (Paragraph 0007) the filtration system includes an ultrafiltration device (liquid-solid separation device) defining an ultrafiltration retentate side and an ultrafiltration permeate side, the ultrafiltration device being configured in cross-flow mode.
Regarding claim 5, Otterstatter teaches (Paragraph 0007, 0094) the filtration system includes an ultrafiltration device (liquid-solid separation device) defining an ultrafiltration retentate side and an ultrafiltration permeate side, the ultrafiltration device being configured in cross-flow mode, wherein the treatment system includes an ultrafiltration cross-flow filter that is used to separate a solids fraction and a liquid fraction.
Regarding claim 6, Otterstatter teaches (Paragraph 0048) the microfiltration device 200 may house a microfilter selected to retain most, substantially all, or all microbes present in the liquid fraction, wherein, in some embodiments, the microfiltration device 200 is capable of sterilizing the separated liquid fraction.
Regarding claim 9, Otterstatter teaches (Paragraph 0006) a method and apparatus for preparing a filtered beverage, including filtering a raw beverage using a cross-flow ultrafiltration device (liquid-solid separation device) to produce a solids fraction (filter stage retentate) and a liquid fraction (filter stage permeate); heating the solids fraction (filter stage retentate) to produce a pasteurized solids fraction; microfiltering the liquid fraction (filter stage permeate) through a microfilter (microorganism reduction device) to produce a microfiltered liquid fraction; and combining the pasteurized solids fraction and the microfiltered liquid fraction to result in the filtered beverage, wherein, in some embodiments, the beverage is a fruit juice. Also, Otterstatter teaches (Paragraph 0048) the microfiltration device may house a microfilter selected to retain most, substantially all, or all microbes present in the liquid fraction, wherein the microfiltration device is capable of sterilizing the separated liquid fraction. In addition, Otterstatter teaches (Paragraph 0041) in some embodiments, the solids fraction includes most or substantially all of the suspended solids of the raw beverage (meaning that the filter stage permeate leaving the liquid-solid separation device is substantially solid-free). Consequently, the microfiltered sterile liquid produced from the liquid fraction would also be substantially solid-free juice. Furthermore, Otterstatter teaches (Paragraph 0037, 0041) the solids fraction from the ultrafiltration device (liquid-solid separation device) contains substantially all of the suspended solids, which include pulp (and a filter that separates out suspended solids would likely, if not necessarily separate out any larger non-suspended solids). Also, Otterstatter teaches (Paragraph 0042) the liquid fraction (which will be juice in embodiments where the starting material is raw fruit juice) from the ultrafiltration device (liquid-solid separation device) includes water-soluble compounds including sugars. Additionally, Otterstatter teaches (Paragraph 0055) utilizing water recirculation to help wash more sugars and other small molecules from the solids fraction.
Otterstatter is silent on separating a pulp fraction in the raw juice feed into two fractions: a first fraction and a second fraction, wherein smaller solid particles having a size less than 0.5 mm and liquid pass to the second fraction, wherein wash water is introduced during separation to transfer some or all of the sugars and other desirable species from the first fraction into the second fraction, wherein the desirable species comprise one or more of bioactive species, flavor-contributing components, aroma-contributing components, and nutrients and wherein the first fraction is moved to a hot pasteurization device, when present, and/or removed from the method. Otterstatter is further silent on introducing filter stage permeate from the one or more liquid-solid separation device(s) to a reverse osmosis device to separate same into a RO permeate comprising process water and a RO retentate comprising substantially solid-free juice comprising at least one of juice, sugars and other desirable species; wherein only the RO retentate is introduced to the at least one microorganism reduction device to sterilize or reduce the bioburden of same.
Black teaches (Col. 1,lines 9-10; Col. 2, lines 49-52; Col. 3, lines 14-16) a process of separating sugars from juices, wherein a fruit juice is passed through a UF membrane (liquid-solid separation) resulting in a UF retentate and a UF permeate, and wherein the juice (which is understood to include a pulp fraction since pulp is separated in the preliminary filtration)has been preliminarily filtered (separation into first and second fractions) to remove seeds, pulp and miscellaneous solids (first fraction) from the juice (second fraction comprising liquid). Black does not disclose any step of re-introducing the removed seeds, pulp, and miscellaneous solids back to the system, and indicates that removal of the seeds, pulp, and miscellaneous solids is perform to reduce clogging of the filters (Col. 2, lines 52-55). Therefore, the first fraction is understood to be removed from the system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Otterstatter to separate the raw juice feed into two fractions: a first fraction and a second fraction comprising smaller solid particles and liquid, wherein the first fraction is removed from the system, in view of Black, since both are directed to methods of filtering and processing juice, since separating a raw juice feed into a first fraction and a second fraction comprising smaller solid particles and liquid prior to passing the juice through an ultrafiltration device (liquid-solid separation device) is known in the art as shown by Black, since the inclusion of a pulp separation step for preliminary removal of pulp will allow for a more efficient ultrafiltration process because the filters will not clog as quickly (Black, Col. 2, lines 53-55), since the pulp separation can remove large components like pulp and seeds that would be undesirable due to the effect on the resultant texture of the beverage and potential choking hazards, and since inclusion of pulp separation to provide additional filtering of the raw juice will improve the overall separation of undesired materials from the raw juice providing a purer product.
Furthermore, as noted above, Otterstatter teaches (Paragraph 0055) utilizing water recirculation to help wash more sugars and other small molecules from the solids fraction, referring to the solids fraction from the ultrafiltration (liquid-solid separation) device. Also, as shown above by Black, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a pulp separation step prior to liquid-solid separation with an ultrafiltration device for the reasons stated above, namely to allow for a more efficient ultrafiltration process because the filters will not clog as quickly.
In consideration of both Otterstatter and Black, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to introduce wash water during separation via the large pulp separation device to transfer some or all of the sugars and other desirable species from the first fraction into the second fraction, since use of wash water to wash sugars and other small molecules from a solids fraction is known from Otterstatter, since extracting a first fraction containing seeds and pulp (solids) from a second fraction comprising juice prior to liquid-solid separation using an ultrafiltration device is known from Black, since recovery of the sugars and other molecules would allow the sugars and other small molecules to be preserved and/or reintroduced into the fruit juice to provide additional flavor or nutrition, improving the production process and preventing loss of desirable materials, and since using recirculated wash water allows recovery of usable materials without the need for addition water and the associated costs thereof.
Additionally, the claimed separation of fine pulp having a size less than 0.5 mm would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Otterstatter, as modified above, based upon factors such as the desired mouthfeel and texture of the processed juice (where larger pulp will create a thicker and more viscous mouthfeel and texture), the intended subsequent processing and equipment used therein (where pulp that is too large can clog or block subsequent filtration devices), the desired appearance of the processed juice, the intended nutritional content of the processed juice (where the separated pulp smaller than a certain size will limit the fiber content of the juice), etc. Furthermore, the Applicant has neither demonstrated the criticality nor identified any unique or unexpected benefit of the claimed separation of fine pulp having a size less than 0.5 mm that would render it non-obvious.
Furthermore, since Otterstatter, as modified above, is silent with regards to separation of fine pulp having a size less than 0.5 mm one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art for suitable range of pulp sizes from separation.
Ning teaches (Paragraph 0004, 0011) a method and apparatus for production of lychee juice, wherein lychee juice is produced by peeling, pitting, and pulping, and passing the lychee juice through a coarse filter (large pulp separation device) followed by a fine filter, wherein a coarse filtration machine comprises a 0.5 mm screen (large pulp separation device) used to obtain the coarse filtrate (where pulp having a size less than 0.5 mm would pass through the 0.5 mm screen, and resulting in a second fraction comprising fine pulp and liquid).
Selection of a known filtration size (device configuration) based on its suitability for its intended use (filtration of pulp in juice) supports a prima facie obviousness determination (See MPEP 2144.07).
Lawhon teaches (Col. 4, lines 1-27; Fig. 1 #10, 12, 13) a system and process for producing food juice wherein fresh extracted juice (raw juice feed) is subjected to ultrafiltration 10 to produce a UF permeate 12 and a UF retentate 13. Lawhon further teaches (Col. 5, lines 3-5; Col. 6, lines 40-49; Fig. 1 #11, 14, 17) the UF permeate is subjected to reverse osmosis stage 11 (which necessitates a reverse osmosis device) which produces RO retentate 14 and discharges water as an RO permeate effluent 17. Additionally, Lawhon teaches (Col. 6, lines 24-27; Fig. 1 #22, 24) the RO retentate can be passed through a bacteriological filter stage 22 (microorganism reduction )prior to the recombining stage 24 to further ensure the absence of spoilage microorganism, where Figure 1 shows that only the RO retentate fraction is introduced to the at least one microorganism reduction device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Otterstatter to introduce all filter stage permeate from the at least one or more liquid-solid separation device(s) to a reverse osmosis device to separate same into a RO permeate comprising process water and a RO retentate comprising substantially solid-free juice comprising at least one of juice, sugars and other desirable species and wherein only the RO retentate is introduced to the at least one microorganism reduction device to sterilize or reduce the bioburden of same in view of Lawhon since both are directed to methods of processing juice by subjecting juice to ultrafiltration and microorganism reduction, since providing a reverse osmosis (RO) device, wherein all filter stage permeate from the at least one or more liquid-solid separation device(s) is separated into a RO permeate comprising process water and a RO retentate comprising juice and wherein only the RO retentate is introduced to the at least one microorganism reduction device is known in the art as shown by Lawhon, since reverse osmosis (RO) can concentrate the flavor and aroma components in a RO retentate which can then be recombined with the UF retentate to provide a juice suitable for storage or removed in the concentrated form for later dilution before use, or further processed for use as a food, cosmetics, feed, or industrial products ingredient (Lawhon, Col. 3, lines 15-23), and since RO permeate can be recycled through the ultrafiltration membrane providing the further advantage of allowing the juice to be processed either with minimum or no water addition (Lawhon, Col. 3, lines 31-35).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Otterstatter is silent on the first fraction never being moved to an ultrafiltration device.
As shown above, Black teaches (Col. 1,lines 9-10; Col. 2, lines 49-52; Col. 3, lines 14-16) a process of separating sugars from juices, wherein a fruit juice is passed through a UF membrane (liquid-solid separation device) resulting in a UF retentate and a UF permeate, and wherein the juice has been preliminarily filtered (which requires the use of filter/ large pulp separation device) to remove seeds, pulp and miscellaneous solids (first fraction) from the juice (second fraction). Furthermore, Black does not indicate that the separated seeds, pulp, and miscellaneous solids are added back to the juice at any point in processing.
While Black does not explicitly state that first fraction of large pulp and other solids is never moved to an ultrafiltration device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to avoid moving the first fraction directly to an ultrafiltration device in view of Black, since Black teaches performing the preliminary filtration to avoid clogging the filters in the subsequent ultrafiltration process (Black, Col. 2, lines 53-55) so one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to not move the first fraction to an ultrafiltration device to avoid such clogging.
Regarding claim 10, Otterstatter teaches (Paragraph 0037) the raw beverage may be fruit juice, such as orange juice.
Regarding claim 11, Otterstatter teaches (Paragraph 0055) utilizing water recirculation with water separated in reverse osmosis (RO permeate) to help wash more sugars and other small molecules from the solids fraction, referring to the solids fraction from the ultrafiltration (liquid-solid separation) device. It is noted that this is a different embodiment of Otterstatter than the embodiment described in claim 1 above, and the RO permeate is sent to the liquid-solid separation device rather than the raw juice separation device.
Also, as shown above by Black, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a pulp separation device prior to an ultrafiltration device for the reasons stated above, namely to allow for a more efficient ultrafiltration process because the filters will not clog as quickly.
Furthermore, as shown above by Lawhon, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the use of a reverse osmosis device after ultrafiltration to produce a RO permeate comprising water that can be recycled to the ultrafiltration device.
In consideration of both Otterstatter, Black, and Lawhon, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to introduce RO permeate as wash water to the raw juice separation device, since use of wash water from reverse osmosis to wash sugars and other small molecules from a solids fraction is known from Otterstatter, since extracting a first fraction containing seeds and pulp (solids) prior to liquid-solid separation using an ultrafiltration device is known from Black, since recycling RO permeate to an earlier stage of processing is known in the art as shown by Lawhon, since recovery of the sugars and other molecules would allow the sugars and other small molecules to be preserved and/or reintroduced into the fruit juice to provide additional flavor or nutrition, improving the production process and preventing loss of desirable materials, and since RO permeate can be recycled providing the further advantage of allowing the juice to be processed either with minimum or no water addition (Lawhon, Col. 3, lines 31-35).
Regarding claim 14, Otterstatter teaches (Paragraph 0007) the filtration system includes an ultrafiltration device (liquid-solid separation device) defining an ultrafiltration retentate side and an ultrafiltration permeate side, the ultrafiltration device being configured in cross-flow mode.
Regarding claim 15, Otterstatter teaches (Paragraph 0007, 0094) the filtration system includes an ultrafiltration device (liquid-solid separation device) defining an ultrafiltration retentate side and an ultrafiltration permeate side, the ultrafiltration device being configured in cross-flow mode, wherein the treatment system includes an ultrafiltration cross-flow filter that is used to separate a solids fraction and a liquid fraction.
Regarding claim 16, Otterstatter teaches (Paragraph 0048) the microfiltration device 200 may house a microfilter selected to retain most, substantially all, or all microbes present in the liquid fraction, wherein, in some embodiments, the microfiltration device 200 is capable of sterilizing the separated liquid fraction.
Regarding claim 19, Otterstatter teaches (Paragraph 0055) utilizing water recirculation with water separated in reverse osmosis (RO permeate) to help wash more sugars and other small molecules from the solids fraction. Otterstatter also does not indicate the use of an outside water source at any point in the process. For example, Figure 3A shows an embodiment of the invention, wherein the only input to the process is raw juice and the only output is treated juice, with the only water in the process being RO water derived from the juice feed.
Consequently, even if not explicitly stated, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to only use water sources from the raw juice feed in view of Otterstatter, since using water extracted within the process would remove the need for outside water, improving efficiency and lowering costs, and since using water from the RO permeate would prevent the need to find or use an additional water supply, allowing the juice production process to be performed when an additional water source is unavailable.
Additionally, as shown above, Lawhon teaches (Col. 3, lines 31-35) RO permeate can be recycled through the ultrafiltration membrane providing the further advantage of allowing the juice to be processed either with minimum or no water addition.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otterstatter (US 20210153527 A1) in view of Black (US 5403604 A) Ning (CN 109043405 A), and Lawhon (US 4643902 A), and further in view of Gray (PL 218909 B1) and Ilame et al. (Application of Membrane Separation in Fruit and Vegetable Juice Processing: A Review).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Otterstatter teaches (Claim 18) separating water from the liquid fraction using reverse osmosis; mixing the water with the solids fraction to produce a diluted solids fraction.
Otterstatter is silent on the RO permeate fraction being introduced to the at least one liquid-solid separation device for diafiltration.
Gray teaches (Paragraph 0002, 0005) a method for producing a concentrated beetroot juice, wherein the juice is ultrafiltrated using the diafiltration process.
Ilame et al. teaches (Diafiltration) application of membrane separation in fruit and vegetable juice processing, wherein diafiltration is filtration through a membrane, especially a UF membrane, where water has been added to the feed dispersion, which can reduce the amount of permeable solids in the retentate. Ilame et al. further teaches (Diafiltration) pulp retentate from citrus fruit can be subjected to Diafiltration, which reduced levels of bitterents within the pulpy material, and the diafiltration retentate is processed as or into useful pulp products and/or clouding agents which have blandness characteristics as desired.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Otterstatter, as modified above to introduce water into the liquid-solid separation device for diafiltration in view of Gray and Ilame et al. since each is directed to methods of processing plant juice using an ultrafiltration device, since using water to perform diafiltration in a UF device (liquid-solid separation device) is known in the art as shown by Gray and Ilame et al., since diafiltration can reduce the amount of permeable solids in the retentate, separating out components into desired fractions, and since pulp retentate from citrus fruit can be subjected to Diafiltration, which reduced levels of bitterents within the pulpy material, and the diafiltration retentate is processed as or into useful pulp products and/or clouding agents which have blandness characteristics as desired (Ilame et al., Diafiltration).
Furthermore, as stated above, Lawhon teaches (Col. 3, lines 31-35) RO permeate can be recycled through the ultrafiltration membrane providing the further advantage of allowing the juice to be processed either with minimum or no water addition.
As shown above, performing diafiltration with water in the liquid-solid separation device would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons stated above. Using reverse osmosis permeate water for this process would be further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since Lawhon and Otterstatter teaches using RO permeate water in other processing steps, since using water extracted within the process would remove the need for outside water, improving efficiency and lowering costs, and since using water from the RO permeate would prevent the need to find or use an additional water supply, allowing the juice production process to be performed when an additional water source is unavailable.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otterstatter (US 20210153527 A1) in view of Black (US 5403604 A) Ning (CN 109043405 A), and Lawhon (US 4643902 A), and further in view of Siemensma (US 20140170266 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Otterstatter teaches (Paragraph 0040) during the method, the temperature of the liquid fraction is never increased above 35° C.
Otterstatter, as modified above, is silent on the at least one microorganism reduction device never achieving a temperature greater than 30 °C.
Siemensma (Paragraph 0049, 0074-0076) teaches a method of preparing a dairy product including treating milk with a microfilter of a poresize of 0.01-2 micron (microorganism reduction device), wherein the microfiltrations step may be performed at a temperature between 0 and 25 °C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Otterstatter to use the microorganism reduction device at a temperature no greater than 30 °C in view of Siemensma, since both are directed to treating consumable liquids including passing the consumable liquid through a microfiltration device (microorganism reduction device), since operating a microfiltration device below 30 °C is known in the art as shown by Siemensma, since operating below 30 °C would prevent heat from harming or destroying desired components in the juice/consumable liquid, and since operating below 30 °C would remove the need for any heating equipment.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otterstatter (US 20210153527 A1) in view of Black (US 5403604 A), Ning (CN 109043405 A), and Lawhon (US 4643902 A), and further in view of Yi (CN 112841468 A).
Regarding claim 20, Otterstatter does not describe the addition of any additives, and disclosed embodiments such as those shown in Figures 2A and 3A show raw juice as the only feed to the process, so the final juice would be understood to comprise less than 1 wt.% of preservatives and flavor and aroma packs. Furthermore, Otterstatter teaches (Paragraph 0040) according to an embodiment, the liquid fraction is not heated or pasteurized, and for example, during the method, the temperature of the liquid fraction is never increased above 35° C. Thus, heat sensitive nutrients would likely, if not necessarily be preserved, and Otterstatter does not indicate the addition of any nutrients to the process, which only has a raw juice feed, indicating that no heat sensitive nutrients that would need to be supplement to the final juice are destroyed. Additionally, the product produced by the modified process of Otterstatter would be expected to exhibit the same material properties, including shelf life and material composition, as those sampled and tested by the applicant due to the use of the same materials and processing steps.
Also, the presence of certain species, such as linalool acetate, would depend on the type of raw juice used. Otterstatter is not limited to a particular type of fruit, and the preparation of juice from a variety of different fruits is known, for example, from Black, which teaches (Col. 2, lines 41-47) fruit juice is obtained from fruits including citrus fruits such as oranges, grapefruit, lemons and limes; apples, grapes, mangos, papaya, pears, peaches, apricots, pineapples, strawberries, raspberries, currants, blueberries and the like.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide raw juice from a fruit that comprises less than 1 wt.% linalool acetate in view of Black since both are directed to production of juice from fruits, since obtaining juice from citrus fruits such as oranges, grapefruit, lemons and limes; apples, grapes, mangos, papaya, pears, peaches, apricots, pineapples, strawberries, raspberries, currants, blueberries and the like is known in the art as shown by Black, since a fruit juice comprising less than 1 wt.% linalool acetate would suit certain consumer preferences and needs, where some consumers will be allergic to certain plant species or prefer particular types of juice based on taste, texture, scent, etc.
Furthermore, the claimed linalool acetate concentration of less than 1 wt.% would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Otterstatter, as modified above, based upon factors such as the type of fruit that is processed into juice (where different fruits have different amounts of linalool acetate), the time and temperature of pasteurization, consumer preferences in taste, texture, and scent, consumer allergies or intolerances to certain ingredients, etc. Furthermore, the Applicant has neither demonstrated the criticality nor identified any unique or unexpected benefit of the claimed linalool acetate concentration of less than 1 wt.% that would render it non-obvious.
Furthermore, since Otterstatter is silent with regards to a linalool acetate concentration of less than 1 wt.% one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art for suitable concentrations.
Yi teaches (claim 7) a mandarin orange juice beverage with an edible flavoring comprising 0.05-0.2% linalyl acetate.
Selection of a known ingredient concentration based on its suitability for its intended use (production of a fruit juice composition) supports a prima facie obviousness determination (See MPEP 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-12, filed 07/01/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 9 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Otterstatter (US 20210153527 A1) in view of Black (US 5403604 A), Ning (CN 109043405 A), and Lawhon (US 4643902 A).
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that there is no motivation, teaching or suggestion that wash water is being introduced to the Black "seeds, pulp and miscellaneous solids" to "transfer some or all of the sugars and other desirable species from the first fraction to the second fraction," as claimed by applicant herein, the Examiner notes that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In consideration of both Otterstatter and Black, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to introduce wash water during separation via the raw juice separation device to transfer some or all of the sugars and other desirable species from the first fraction into the second fraction, since use of wash water to wash sugars and other small molecules from a solids fraction is known from Otterstatter, since extracting a first fraction containing seeds and pulp (solids) from a second fraction comprising juice prior to liquid-solid separation using an ultrafiltration device is known from Black, since recovery of the sugars and other molecules would allow the sugars and other small molecules to be preserved and/or reintroduced into the fruit juice to provide additional flavor or nutrition, improving the production process and preventing loss of desirable materials, and since using recirculated wash water allows recovery of usable materials without the need for addition water and the associated costs thereof.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, claims 1, 9, and all dependent claims remain rejected under 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Reisig (US 20020011246 A1) teaches a process for producing sugar from cane that includes the steps of: (a) grinding sugar cane or pieces thereof into pulp; (b) mechanically separating juice from the pulp; and (c) membrane filtering the separated juice, for example through an ultrafiltration membrane, producing a retentate and a permeate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN P TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-2652. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm.
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.
/AUSTIN PARKER TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights