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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 03/04/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 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 Final Office Action mailed 12/18/2025, 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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, the term “large pulp” is unclear because the scope or size boundary of what pulp would be considered “large” has not been provided. Consequently, claims 1 and 9 are rejected as indefinite.
Claims 2-8 are rejected as indefinite as a result of depending upon indefinite claim 1.
Claims 10-20 are rejected as indefinite as a result of depending upon indefinite claim 9.
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, 8-12, 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) and Ning (CN 109043405 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 (retentate) and a liquid fraction (permeate); heating the solids fraction (retentate) to produce a pasteurized solids fraction; microfiltering the liquid fraction (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. Otterstatter further teaches (Claims 1, 18) the liquid fraction (permeate) from the crossflow ultrafiltration device may be subjected to reverse osmosis (which would require a reverse osmosis device) to separate water (the claim also states that the “liquid fraction” is subjected to reverse osmosis rather than the “microfiltered liquid fraction” which is used to refer to the liquid fraction that has passed through the microfilter, indicating that the reverse osmosis occurs after solid-liquid separation from the ultrafiltration device and before microbe reduction by the microfilter in this embodiment of the invention). Additionally, in the embodiment of claims 1 and 18, only the liquid fraction (i.e. the RO retentate after the removal of water) is described as being passed through the microfilter (microorganism reduction device). Furthermore, claim 18 of Otterstatter states “separating water from the liquid fraction using reverse osmosis”. Considering that the language used is “the liquid fraction” rather than “some of the liquid fraction” or “part of the liquid fraction”, Otterstatter is understood to indicate that all permeate from the at least one liquid-solid separation device is subjected to separation via reverse osmosis. 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 liquid fraction leaving the liquid-solid separation device is substantially solid-free). Consequently, the RO permeate and 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 large pulp separation device to separate a pulp fraction in the raw juice feed into a first fraction comprising large pulp and a second fraction comprising fine pulp and liquid, wherein the fine pulp has a size less than 0.5 mm, 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.
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 filter/ large pulp separation device) to remove seeds, pulp and miscellaneous solids (first fraction) from the juice (second fraction comprising liquid).
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 large pulp separation device to separate a pulp fraction in the raw juice feed into a first fraction comprising large pulp and a second fraction comprising liquid, in view of Black, since both are directed to methods of filtering and processing juice, since separating pulp and liquid from a fruit juice comprising a pulp fraction using a filter (large pulp separation device) 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 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).
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. 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 from reverse osmosis during separation via the large pulp separation device to transfer some or all of the sugars and other desirable species from the first fraction to the second fraction, 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 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 from reverse osmosis allows recovery of usable materials without the need for additional water and the associated costs thereof.
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 (retentate) and a liquid fraction (permeate); heating the solids fraction (retentate) to produce a pasteurized solids fraction; microfiltering the liquid fraction (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. Otterstatter further teaches (Claims 1, 18) the liquid fraction (permeate) from the crossflow ultrafiltration device may be subjected to reverse osmosis to separate water (the claim also states that the “liquid fraction” is subjected to reverse osmosis rather than the “microfiltered liquid fraction” which is used to refer to the liquid fraction that has passed through the microfilter, indicating that the reverse osmosis occurs after solid-liquid separation from the ultrafiltration device and before microbe reduction by the microfilter in this embodiment of the invention). Additionally, in the embodiment of claims 1 and 18, only the liquid fraction (i.e. the RO retentate after the removal of water) is described as being passed through the microfilter (microorganism reduction device). Furthermore, claim 18 of Otterstatter states “separating water from the liquid fraction using reverse osmosis”. Considering that the language used is “the liquid fraction” rather than “some of the liquid fraction” or “part of the liquid fraction”, Otterstatter is understood to indicate that all permeate from the at least one liquid-solid separation device is subjected to separation via reverse osmosis. 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 liquid fraction leaving the liquid-solid separation device is substantially solid-free). Consequently, the RO permeate and 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 a first fraction comprising large pulp and a second fraction comprising fine pulp and liquid, wherein the fine pulp has a size less than 0.5 mm, 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.
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).
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 a pulp fraction in the raw juice feed into a first fraction comprising large pulp and a second fraction comprising liquid, in view of Black, since both are directed to methods of filtering and processing juice, since separating pulp and liquid from a fruit juice using a filter (large pulp separation) prior to passing the juice through an ultrafiltration device (liquid-solid separation) 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).
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. 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 from reverse osmosis during separation via the large pulp separation device to transfer some or all of the sugars and other desirable species from the first fraction to the second fraction, 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 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 from reverse osmosis allows recovery of usable materials without the need for additional water and the associated costs thereof.
Regarding claim 12, Otterstatter teaches (Paragraph 0046) the ultrafiltration device 100 (liquid solid separation device) may have in inlet that receives and input flow 111 and outlets for output flows of retentate 130 and permeate 120.
While Otterstatter does not have an initial filtering step, such that feed to the liquid-solid separation device comprises a second fraction, 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) resulting in a UF retentate and a UF permeate, and wherein the juice has been preliminarily filtered (separation into first and second fractions) to remove seeds, pulp and miscellaneous solids (first fraction) from the juice (second fraction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Otterstatter to provide the feed to the liquid-solid separation step as a second fraction in view of Black for the reasons stated above with regard to claim 9.
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.
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) and Ning (CN 109043405 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, Otterstatter teaches using reverse osmosis permeate water to dilute solids, and Otterstatter does not describe the introduction of additional process water into the process. 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 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) and Ning (CN 109043405 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) and Ning (CN 109043405 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 7-9, filed 03/04/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 1-20 have been withdrawn.
Regarding the Applicant's argument against the 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claim 1 and 9, that the term "substantially solid-free" is well understood when read in light of the specification since solids, in the context of a solution, are well known in the chemical arts to correspond to substances that have a rigid shape and can be separated from the liquid, where solids described herein can be suspended solids or non-suspended solids and the solids can be substances that have been characterized as sugars, e.g., non-dissolved sugars, or characterized as something that is not a sugar, i.e., non-sugars, this argument is accepted. Additionally, the Examiner notes that “substantially solid free” has been interpreted to not include dissolved solids, such as dissolved sugar, which may be present in a substantially solid free juice as stated in claims 1 and 9.
The Examiner also notes, that, while the 35 USC 112(a) rejections of claims 1-20 have been removed, claims 1-20 are once again rejected under 35 USC 112(b) in view of the term “large pulp”. This rejection was previously included in the first Non-Final Rejection of 06/11/2025, then removed when a limitation was added clarifying that large pulp has a size greater than about 0.5 mm. Paragraph 0025 of the Applicant's Specification states: "The "pulp fraction" can comprise different pulp sizes including (i) a "large pulp" or "floating pulp" fraction, which comprises larger solid particles such as pieces of ruptured cell sac and segment wall which float to the top after juice is stirred; and (ii) a "fine pulp" or "sinking pulp" fraction, which comprises small solid particles (<0.5 mm) which are suspended in the juice and settle from the juice with time or spin down in a centrifuge." Thus, fine pulp is stated to be <0.5 mm, but that that does not necessarily mean that large pulp is greater than about 0.5 mm. There could be other categorizations for pulp in between large pulp and fine pulp, for example, since the Specification states that the "pulp fraction" can comprise different pulp sizes including" "large pulp" and "small pulp". Thus, the Applicant’s Specification states that fine pulp is less than 0.5 mm, but does not explicitly define large pulp or limit pulp sizes to only fine or large. Consequently, the scope of “large pulp” is unclear.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/2026, regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1 and 9, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that the Examiner acknowledged a significant difference between the Applicant's claimed invention and Otterstatter, that Figure 3B of Otterstatter does not depict the permeate of the liquid-solid separation device being fed to an RO device, but does not provide any objective reason why the person skilled in the art would have modified Otterstatter to introduce the permeate of the liquid-solid separation device into the RO device loop, instead of the retentate, and instead focused on a teaching in Otterstatter that the permeate from the crossflow ultrafiltration device is introduced to the RO loop, the Examiner notes, as previously stated in the rejection, the cross-flow ultrafiltration device of Otterstatter is the liquid-solid separation device. See, for example, Paragraph 0006 of Otterstatter, which teaches “using a cross-flow ultrafiltration device to produce a solids fraction and a liquid fraction”. While the embodiment of Otterstatter’s invention depicted in Figure 3B does not depict the permeate of the cross-flow ultrafiltration device (liquid-solid separation device) being fed to an RO device, such an embodiment is described in claims 1 and 18, and, therefore, is taught by Otterstatter.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that Otterstatter did not intend to include a large pulp separation device, or the equivalent thereof, prior to treatment in their system since Otterstatter expressly recites that "[a]ccording to some embodiments, after obtaining (e.g., juicing, squeezing, pressing, fermenting, etc.) and prior to treatment in the system of the present disclosure, no components have been removed from the raw beverage, including solids, soluble compounds, and microbes" and "[i]n some embodiments, the raw beverage has not been filtered prior to treating in the system of the present disclosure" (see, Otterstatter, paragraph [0038]), the Examiner notes that both quotations of Otterstatter provided by the Applicant explicitly state that these configurations of the process with no solids removal or prior filtration are directed only to “some embodiments” of the invention. This clearly demonstrates that other embodiments with removal of solids and/or filtration prior to introduction into the disclosed process are, at minimum, permitted. Therefore, in consideration of the teaching of Black and the motivation for modifying Otterstatter in view of Black described above with regard to claims 1 and 9, the Examiner maintains that filtering the juice prior to liquid-solid separation would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that the solid fraction leaving the ultrafiltration device of in the process of Otterstatter is moved into the RO loop, not the liquid fraction as claimed by applicant herein, and that nothing in Otterstatter motivates, teaches or suggests the wholesale rerouting of the fluid connections to move the permeate from their ultrafiltration device 100 to their reverse osmosis device, the Examiner maintains, as stated above, while the embodiment of Otterstatter’s invention depicted in Figure 3B does not depict the permeate (liquid fraction) of the cross-flow ultrafiltration device (liquid-solid separation device) being fed to an RO device, such an embodiment is described in claims 1 and 18, and, therefore, is taught by Otterstatter.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, claims 1, 9, and all dependent claims remain rejected under 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
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