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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 01/07/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 17-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, and 14-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “milk concentrate” and appears should recite “the frozen plant-based milk concentrate”.
Claim 14 recites “the frozen milk concentrate” and appears should recite “the frozen plant-based milk concentrate”.
Claim 15-16 each recites “the plant-based milk concentrate” and appears should recite “the frozen plant-based milk concentrate”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 9-13 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 claim 9, claim 9 recites “a plurality of compartments” it is unclear if the recited compartments are the same as or different from the “at least one compartment” in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites “compartments” it is unclear if the recited compartments are the same as or different from the “at least one compartment” in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites “at least one compartment”. It is unclear if the recited at least one compartment are the same as or different from the “at least one compartment” in claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites “each compartment”. It is unclear if the recited “each compartment” are the same as or different from the “at least one compartment” in claim 1 and 11.
Claim 12 is rejected based on its dependence to a rejected 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visram US 2007/0212465 in view of Baban US 2020/0329730 in view of Dube US 2018/0297742.
It is noted that [0022] of the specification discloses that “milk” is a liquid beverage formed by blending a wedge with liquid. Therefore “plant based milk concentrate” has been interpreted as a plant based composition that is capable of forming a liquid beverage.
Regarding claim 1, Visram discloses an article comprising a frozen plant-based composition capable of being used as a plant based milk concentrate comprising at least 20wt% ground paste (fruit puree) ([0015], [0018]), and a planar tray defining at least one compartment (Fig. 1, 4). Visram discloses that each compartment is sized to contain no more than four ounces of the frozen plant-based composition, and at least a portion of the frozen plant based composition is disposed in the at least one compartment ([0020]).
Regarding the limitation that the frozen plant-based milk concentrate comprises water, it is noted that Visram discloses that the selected food can be pureed to a desired consistency including between a thin liquid such as the consistency of water or juice or a thick liquid ([0018]) and Baban teaches that fruit puree may contain added water for processing purposes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add water to the frozen plant-based milk concentrate (fruit puree) of Visram for processing purposes as suggested by Banan and additionally in order to assist in obtaining a desired consistency. It has been held that “Applying a known technique to a known method or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness.
Claim 1 differs from Visram in the recitation that the frozen plant based composition forms a wedge in the at least one compartment, however Visram discloses that each compartment can have any suitable size and shape ([0011]) and this is seen to be a mere change in shape of the compartment of Visram (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B).
In any case Dube discloses utilizing compartments having a wedge shape for frozen food portions such as puree ([0064], [0065], [0068], Fig. 1A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compartments of Visram to have a wedge shape as suggested by Dube, since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143.I.A)
Regarding claim 2, Visram discloses that the ground paste is a fruit paste (fruit puree) (‘465, [0015]).
Regarding claims 3-5, claims 3-5 are further limiting non selected options from the group of claim 2 and therefore are also optional limitations.
Regarding claim 6, Visram discloses that the use of fruit in general which encompasses banana (‘465, [0015]).
Regarding claim 9, Visram discloses that the planar tray comprises a plurality of compartments (‘465, Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 10, Visram discloses that the planar tray comprises a maximum of twenty compartments (‘465, Fig. 1, [0012]).
Regarding claims 11-13, claim 11-13 differs from Modified Visram in the recitation that a perimeter of at least one compartment defines a trapezoid and that the shortest edge of the trapezoid has a length selected from a range of 0.1 inches to 0.7 inches. However, Visram discloses that each compartment can have any suitable size and shape (‘465, [0011]) and this is seen to be a mere change in size and shape of the perimeter of the compartments of Visram (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B).
Regarding claim 14, Visram discloses that each compartment is sized to contain at least 0.1 ounces of the frozen milk concentrate (‘465, [0011], [0020]).
Regarding claim 15, Visram discloses that each compartment is sized to contain no more than 3 ounces of the plant based milk concentrate (‘465, [0011], [0020])
Regarding claim 16, Visram discloses that each compartment is sized to contain no more than 2 ounces of the plant based milk concentrate (‘465, [0011], [0020]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visram US 2007/0212465 in view of Baban US 2020/0329730 in view of Dube US 2018/0297742 in view of Calvert, Jr US 2004/0208974.
Regarding claim 7-8, claims 7-8 differs from Visram in the recitation that the milk concentrate further comprises a spice and that the spice comprises at least one of vanilla powder or salt. It is noted that Visram discloses that supplements can be added to change and/or increase flavor of the selected food ([0023]).
Calvert discloses that known sources of flavoring include vanilla powder ([0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the milk concentrate of Visram to comprises a spice and the spice to comprise vanilla powder in order to provide vanilla flavoring to the composition.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY AXTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-0316. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00- 5:30.
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.
/A.A/
Ashley AxtellExaminer, Art Unit 1792
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792